The assessment programme ensures the competence of students as they progress. 

Examples of evidence that might be provided: 

• Copies of the guidelines that are shared with each group of stakeholders as well as an indication of when, where, and how they are shared; any evaluation reports from regulatory bodies or other internal/external groups. 
• Policy documentation already mentioned above. 
• Evidence that those few students who are judged unsuitable for a medical career are correctly identified and appropriate action taken. 
• Description of the assessment program (above), description of the competencies that are valued, alignment of the two with details about the measures. 
• Explicit blueprint documenting how the assessment program has been built to cover variety of competencies of interest/levels of Miller’s pyramid, etc. 
• How does the school set the ‘cut-point?’ Details of how the School deals with the uncertainty around the ‘cut point’ 
• Utility indicators (i.e., evidence of quality assurance analyses and continuous quality improvement efforts – reliability/ validity/ feasibility/ acceptability/ educational impact) for individual measures where appropriate as well as overall program (accompanied by some explicit statement about where/when/why compromises are made to prioritize different aspects of utility in different aspects of the assessment program). 
• Specific evidence that, as far as possible, the assessments are ‘passing’ competent students and identifying and not allowing progression of those not yet competent. o Description of the appeals policies and process; summary of appeals over a period of time; data on recent outcomes. Should be in policy documents alluded to above. 
• Evidence that the process of appeal is independent of the original decision. 
• The use of exemplars could be used to strengthen this section.