Abstract
Introduction/Background
Consensus Moderation (CM) processes are prevalent in higher education, particularly in the assessment of written work. CM plays a key role in calibrating teams marking large undergraduate nursing courses and supporting the achievement of equitable and appropriate grades across large student cohorts. Operationalising CM is a skilled academic activity, underpinning the reliability of grades achieved in health professional education activity and requiring institutional support.
Methods
As part of a quality improvement cycle in a regional university health faculty, an online search was conducted to identify publicly available CM guidelines. A modified AGREE II appraisal tool across five domains was used to systematically evaluate the quality of the seventeen Australian, and ten UK guidelines identified. Two authors reviewed each guideline against the five domains of “scope and purpose”, “stakeholder involvement”, “rigour of development”, “clarity of presentation”, and “applicability”.
Results/Evaluation
Of the twenty-seven university guidelines identified. “Scope and purpose” were generally well articulated; however, there was a lack of “rigour” and acknowledged “stakeholder involvement” in guideline development, with only two mentioning active consideration of staff perspectives and preferences.
None of the guidelines reported conducting a literature review to inform development. Ninety-three per cent of questions related to “rigour of development” scored “no” or “can’t tell” responses. The "applicability" domain found that only 21% of responses demonstrated the availability of practical tools for implementation.
Discussion/Conclusion
Using a systematic approach to guideline assessment, this review underscores the need for universities and health faculties to enhance the development of moderation guidelines, particularly with regards stakeholder engagement, rigour, and applicability, to ensure the effectiveness of consensus moderation policies and their successful implementation.