The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the interplay between student perceptions of competence-based assessment and student self-efficacy, and how this influences student learning outcomes. Results reveal that student perceptions of the form authenticity aspect and the quality feedback aspect of assessment do predict student self-efficacy, confirming the role of mastery experiences and social persuasions in enhancing student self-efficacy as stated by social cognitive theory. Findings do not confirm mastery experiences as being a stronger source of self-efficacy information than social persuasions. Study results confirm the predictive role of students’ self-efficacy on their competence outcomes. Mediation analysis results indicate that student’s perceptions of assessment have an indirect effect on student’s competence evaluation outcomes through student’s self-efficacy. Study findings highlight which assessment characteristics, positively influencing students’ learning, contribute to the effectiveness of competence-based education. Limitations of the study and directions for future research are indicated.
Why a position statement on Assessment in Physical Education? The purpose of this AIESEP Position Statement on Assessment in Physical Education (PE) is fourfold: • To advocate internationally for the importance of assessment practices as central to providing meaningful, relevant and worthwhile physical education; • To advise the field of PE about assessment-related concepts informed by research and contemporary practice; • To identify pressing research questions and avenues for new research in the area of PE assessment; • To provide a supporting rationale for colleagues who wish to apply for research funds to address questions about PE assessment or who have opportunities to work with or influence policy makers. The main target groups for this position statement are PE teachers, PE pre-service teachers, PE curriculum officers, PE teacher educators, PE researchers, PE administrators and PE policy makers. How was this position statement created? The AIESEP specialist seminar ‘Future Directions in PE Assessment’ was held from October 18-20 2018, at Fontys University of Applied Sciences in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. The seminar aimed to bring together leading scholars in the field to present and discuss ‘evidence-informed’ views on various topics around PE assessment. It brought together 71 experts from 20 countries (see appendix 2) to share research on PE assessment via keynote lectures and research presentations and to discuss assessment-related issues in interactive sessions. Input from this meeting informed a first draft version of the statement. This first draft was sent to all participants of the specialist seminar for feedback, from which a second draft was created. This draft was presented at the AIESEP International Conference 2019 in Garden City, New York, after which further feedback was collected from participants both on site and through an online survey. The main contributors to the writing of the position statement are mentioned in appendix 1. Approval was granted by the AIESEP Board on May 7th, 2020. Largely in keeping with the main themes of the AIESEP specialist seminar ‘Future Directions in PE Assessment’, this Position Statement is divided into the following sections: Assessment Literacy; Accountability & Policy; Instructional Alignment; Assessment for Learning; Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) and Continuing Professional Development; Digital Technology in PE Assessment. These sections are preceded by a brief overview of research data on PE. The statement concludes with directions for future research.
Introduction: A trauma resuscitation is dynamic and complex process in which failures could lead to serious adverse events. In several trauma centers, evaluation of trauma resuscitation is part of a hospital's quality assessment program. While video analysis is commonly used, some hospitals use live observations, mainly due to ethical and medicolegal concerns. The aim of this study was to compare the validity and reliability of video analysis and live observations to evaluate trauma resuscitations. Methods: In this prospective observational study, validity was assessed by comparing the observed adherence to 28 advanced trauma life support (ATLS) guideline related tasks by video analysis to life observations. Interobserver reliability was assessed by calculating the intra class coefficient of observed ATLS related tasks by live observations and video analysis. Results: Eleven simulated and thirteen real-life resuscitations were assessed. Overall, the percentage of observed ATLS related tasks performed during simulated resuscitations was 10.4% (P < 0.001) higher when the same resuscitations were analysed using video compared to live observations. During real-life resuscitations, 8.7% (p < 0.001) more ATLS related tasks were observed using video review compared to live observations. In absolute terms, a mean of 2.9 (during simulated resuscitations) respectively 2.5 (during actual resuscitations) ATLS-related tasks per resuscitation were not identified using live observers, that were observed through video analysis. The interobserver variability for observed ATLS related tasks was significantly higher using video analysis compared to live observations for both simulated (video analysis: ICC 0.97; 95% CI 0.97-0.98 vs. live observation: ICC 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.78) and real-life witnessed resuscitations (video analyse 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00 vs live observers 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.89). Conclusion: Video analysis of trauma resuscitations may be more valid and reliable compared to evaluation by live observers. These outcomes may guide the debate to justify video review instead of live observations.
