I: Until recently, physicians in the USA who were board-certified in a specialty needed to take a summative test every 6–10 years. However, the 24 Member Boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties are in the process of switching toward much more frequent assessments, which we refer to as longitudinal assessment. The goal of longitudinal assessments is to provide formative feedback to physicians to help them learn content they do not know as well as serve an evaluation for board certification. We present five articles collectively covering the science behind this change, the likely outcomes, and some open questions. This initial article introduces the context behind this change. This article also discusses various forms of lifelong learning opportunities that can help physicians stay current, including longitudinal assessment, and the pros and cons of each.

II: Over the course of training, physicians develop significant knowledge and expertise. We review dual-process theory, the dominant theory in explaining medical decision making: physicians use both heuristics from accumulated experience (System 1) and logical deduction (System 2). We then discuss how the accumulation of System 1 clinical experience can have both positive effects (e.g., quick and accurate pattern recognition) and negative ones (e.g., gaps and biases in knowledge from physicians’ idiosyncratic clinical experience). These idiosyncrasies, biases, and knowledge gaps indicate a need for individuals to engage in appropriate training and study to keep these cognitive skills current lest they decline over time. Indeed, we review converging evidence that physicians further out from training tend to perform worse on tests of medical knowledge and provide poorer patient care. This may reflect a variety of factors, such as specialization of a physician’s practice, but is likely to stem at least in part from cognitive factors. Acquired knowledge or skills gained may not always be readily accessible to physicians for a number of reasons, including an absence of study, cognitive changes with age, and the presence of other similar knowledge or skills that compete in what is brought to mind. Lastly, we discuss the cognitive challenges of keeping up with standards of care that continuously evolve over time.

III: Is self-assessment enough to keep physicians’ cognitive skills—such as diagnosis, treatment, basic biological knowledge, and communicative skills—current? We review the cognitive strengths and weaknesses of self-assessment in the context of maintaining medical expertise. Cognitive science supports the importance of accurately self-assessing one’s own skills and abilities, and we review several ways such accuracy can be quantified. However, our review also indicates a broad challenge in self-assessment is that individuals do not have direct access to the strength or quality of their knowledge and instead must infer this from heuristic strategies. These heuristics are reasonably accurate in many circumstances, but they also suffer from systematic biases. For example, information that feels easy to process in the moment can lead individuals to overconfidence in their ability to remember it in the future. Another notable phenomenon is the Dunning–Kruger effect: the poorest performers in a domain are also the least accurate in self-assessment. Further, explicit instruction is not always sufficient to remove these biases. We discuss what these findings imply about when physicians’ self-assessment can be useful and when it may be valuable to supplement with outside sources.

IV: Although tests and assessments—such as those used to maintain a physician’s Board certification—are often viewed merely as tools for decision-making about one’s performance level, strong evidence now indicates that the experience of being tested is a powerful learning experience in its own right: The act of retrieving targeted information from memory strengthens the ability to use it again in the future, known as the testing effect. We review meta-analytic evidence for the learning benefits of testing, including in the domain of medicine, and discuss theoretical accounts of its mechanism(s). We also review key moderators—including the timing, frequency, order, and format of testing and the content of feedback—and what they indicate about how to most effectively use testing for learning. We also identify open questions for the optimal use of testing, such as the timing of feedback and the sequencing of complex knowledge domains. Lastly, we consider how to facilitate adoption of this powerful study strategy by physicians and other learners.

V: TBD