The Power of Subjectivity in the Assessment of Medical Trainees

Objectivity in the assessment of students and trainees has been a hallmark of quality since the introduction of multiple-choice items in the 1960s. In medical education, this has extended to the structured examination of clinical skills and workplace-based assessment. Competency-based medical education, a pervasive movement that started roughly around the turn of the century, similarly calls for rigorous, objective assessment to ensure that all medical trainees meet standards to assure quality of health care. At the same time, measures of objectivity, such as reliability, have consistently shown disappointing results. This raises questions about the extent to which objectivity in such assessments can be ensured. In fact, the legitimacy of “objective” assessment of individual trainees, particularly in the clinical workplace, may be questioned. Workplaces are highly dynamic and ratings by observers are inherently subjective, as they are based on expert judgment, and experts do not always agree—for good, idiosyncratic, reasons. Thus, efforts to “objectify” these assessments may be problematically distorting the assessment process itself. In addition, “competence” must meet standards, but it is also context dependent. Educators are now arriving at the insight that subjective expert judgments by medical professionals are not only unavoidable but actually should be embraced as the core of assessment of medical trainees. This paper elaborates on the case for subjectivity in assessment.