TY - JOUR
T1 - Entrustment Unpacked
T2 - Aligning Purposes, Stakes, and Processes to Enhance Learner Assessment
AU - Kinnear, Benjamin
AU - Warm, Eric J
AU - Caretta-Weyer, Holly
AU - Holmboe, Eric S
AU - Turner, David A
AU - van der Vleuten, Cees
AU - Schumacher, Daniel J
N1 - Copyright © 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
PY - 2021/7/1
Y1 - 2021/7/1
N2 - Educators use entrustment, a common framework in competency-based medical education, in multiple ways, including frontline assessment instruments, learner feedback tools, and group decision making within promotions or competence committees. Within these multiple contexts, entrustment decisions can vary in purpose (i.e., intended use), stakes (i.e., perceived risk or consequences), and process (i.e., how entrustment is rendered). Each of these characteristics can be conceptualized as having 2 distinct poles: (1) purpose has formative and summative, (2) stakes has low and high, and (3) process has ad hoc and structured. For each characteristic, entrustment decisions often do not fall squarely at one pole or the other, but rather lie somewhere along a spectrum. While distinct, these continua can, and sometimes should, influence one another, and can be manipulated to optimally integrate entrustment within a program of assessment. In this article, the authors describe each of these continua and depict how key alignments between them can help optimize value when using entrustment in programmatic assessment within competency-based medical education. As they think through these continua, the authors will begin and end with a case study to demonstrate the practical application as it might occur in the clinical learning environment.
AB - Educators use entrustment, a common framework in competency-based medical education, in multiple ways, including frontline assessment instruments, learner feedback tools, and group decision making within promotions or competence committees. Within these multiple contexts, entrustment decisions can vary in purpose (i.e., intended use), stakes (i.e., perceived risk or consequences), and process (i.e., how entrustment is rendered). Each of these characteristics can be conceptualized as having 2 distinct poles: (1) purpose has formative and summative, (2) stakes has low and high, and (3) process has ad hoc and structured. For each characteristic, entrustment decisions often do not fall squarely at one pole or the other, but rather lie somewhere along a spectrum. While distinct, these continua can, and sometimes should, influence one another, and can be manipulated to optimally integrate entrustment within a program of assessment. In this article, the authors describe each of these continua and depict how key alignments between them can help optimize value when using entrustment in programmatic assessment within competency-based medical education. As they think through these continua, the authors will begin and end with a case study to demonstrate the practical application as it might occur in the clinical learning environment.
KW - Clinical Competence
KW - Competency-Based Education/methods
KW - Education, Medical, Graduate/methods
KW - Educational Measurement/methods
KW - Formative Feedback
KW - Humans
KW - Learning
U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004108
DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004108
M3 - Article
C2 - 34183603
SN - 1040-2446
VL - 96
SP - S56-S63
JO - Academic Medicine
JF - Academic Medicine
IS - 7S
ER -