Measurement of learning outcomes in continuing professional development

Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 214-221

  Grant, Janet ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Continuing medical education (CME); Continuing professional development; Outcome measures

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842465108     PISSN: 08941912     EISSN: 1554558X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/chp.1340190406     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Grant J, Stanton F. The effectiveness of continuing professional development. A report for the Chief Medical Officer's review of continuing professional development in practice. London: Joint Centre for Education in Medicine, 1998.
2. Department of Health. A first class service. Quality in the new NHS. HMSO, 1998.
3. General Medical Council (UK). Report of the revalidation steering group. 1999.
4. Norman GR, Van Der Vleuten CPM, de Graaf E. Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: issues of validity, efficiency and acceptability. Med Educ 1991; 25: 110–126.
5. Van Der Vleuten CPM, Norman GR, de Graaf E. Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: issues of reliability. Med Educ 1991; 25: 110–118.
6. Barnet R. The limits of competence. Buckingham: SRHE and The Open University, 1994.
7. Wakeford RE, Southgate L. Postgraduate medical education: modifying trainees' study approaches by changing the examination. Teach Learn Med 1992; 4: 210–213.
8. Spencer F. Teaching and measuring surgical techniques: the technical evaluation of competence. Bull Am Coll Surg 1978; 63: 9–12.
9. Darzi A, Smith S, Taffinder N. Assessing operative skills. BMJ 1999; 318: 887–888.
10. Torgerson D, Raftery J. Measuring outcomes in economic evaluations. BMJ 1999; 318: 1413.
11. Grant J, Chambers E, Jackson G. The good CPD guide. London: Reed Business Information, 1999.
12. Somervell H. Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: the case for self-, peer and collaborative assessment. Assess Eval Higher Educ 1993; 18: 221–233.