Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes



Download 65.8 Kb.
Page12/12
Date22.04.2018
Size65.8 Kb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12
References

1 Van der Vleuten CPM. The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ 1996;1(1):41-67.

2 Gielen S, Dochy F, Dierick S. Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: the influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. In: Segers M, Dochy F, Cascallar E, eds. Optimising new Modes of Assessemnt: In Search of Qualities and Standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.

3 Linn RL, Baker E, Dunbar SB. Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher 1991;16:1-21.

4 Messick S. The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher 1995;23:13-23.

5 Schuwirth LWT, Van der Vleuten CPM. Changing education, changing assessment, changing research. Med Educ 2003;37: In press.

6 Downing SM. The metric of medical education. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 2003;37(9):830-7.

7 Hodges B. Validity and the OSCE. Med Teach 2003;25(3):250-4.

8 Swanson DB, Norman GR, Linn RL. Performance-based assessment: Lessons from the health professions. Educational Researcher 1995;24(5):5-11.

9 Van der Vleuten CPM, Norman GR, De Graaff E. Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: issues of reliability. Med Educ 1991;25:110-8.

10. Petrusa ER. Clinical performance assessments. In: Norman GR, Van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, eds. International Handbook for Research in Medical Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002:673-709.

11. Williams RG, Klamen DA, McGaghie WC. Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings. Teach Learn Med 2003;15(4):270-92.

12. Schuwirth LWT, Van der Vleuten CPM. The use of clinical simulations in assessment. Med Educ 2003;37 Suppl 1:65-71.

13. Rethans JJ, Norcini JJ, Baron-Maldonado M, et al. The relationship between competence and performance: implications for assessing practice performance. Med Educ 2002;36(10):901-9.

14. Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Arnold GK, Kimbal HR. The mini-CEX (Clinical Evaluation Exercise): A preliminary investigation. Ann Intern Med 1995;123:795-9.

15. Turnbull J, Van Barneveld C. Assessment of clinical performance: In-training evaluation. In: Norman GR, Van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, eds. International Handbook of Research in Medical Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002:793-810.

16. Ram P, Grol R, Rethans JJ, Schouten B, Van der Vleuten CPM, Kester A. Assessment of general practitioners by video observation of communicative and medical performance in daily practice: issues of validity, reliability and feasibility. Med Educ 1999;33(6):447-54.

17. Gorter S, Rethans JJ, Scherpbier A, et al. How to introduce incognito patients into outpatient clinics of specialists in rheumatology. Med Teach 2001;23(2):138-44.

18. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med 1990;65(9):S63-7.

19. Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 2002;287(2):226-35.

20. Harden RM. Developments in outcome-based education. Med Teach 2002;24(2):117-20.

21. Smith SR, Dollase RH, Boss JA. Assessing students' performance in a competency-based curriculum. Acad Med 2003;78:97-107.

22. Van Merriënboer JJG. Training Complex Cognitive Skills. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs Educational Technology Publications; 1997.

23. Swanson DB, Norcini JJ, Grosso LJ. Assessment of clinical competence: written and computer-based simulations. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 1987;12(3):220-46.

24. Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick R, Szalay D. Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med 1998;73(9):993-7.

25. Coles C. Developing professional judgment. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002;22(1):3-10.

26. Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case SM, Galbraith R, Swanson DB, Glew RH. The quality of in-house medical school examinations. Acad Med 2002;77(2):156-61.

27. Dochy F, Segers M, Sluijsmans D. The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Education 1999;24(3):331-50.

28. Norcini JJ. The metric of medical education: peer assesment of competence. Med Educ 2003;37(6):539-43.

29. Lockyer J. Multisource feedback in the assessment of physician competencies. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2003;23:2-10.

30. Snadden D. Portfolios - attempting to measure the unmeasurable? Med Educ 1999;33:478-9.

31. Driessen EW, Van der Vleuten CPM, Van Tartwijk J, Vermunt JD. Credibility of portfolio assessment as an alternative for reliability evaluation: a case study. Med Educ, In press.

32. Anonymous. Standards for Educational and Psychological Ttesting. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.

33. Crossley J, Humphris G, Jolly B. Assessing health professionals. Med Educ 2002;36:800-4.

34. Mennin SP, Kalishman S. Student assessment. Acad Med 1998;73(9):S46-54.

35. Gibbs G, Simpson C. How assessment influences student learning - a conceptual overview: The Open University: Centre for Higher Education Practice; 2002

36. Chibnall JT. The influence of testing context and clinical rotation order on student OSCE performance. Acad Med 2004;79(6):597-601.

37. Davis WK, White CB. Managing the curriculum and managing change. In: Norman GR, Van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, eds. International Handbook of Research in Medical Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002:917-44.

38. Epstein RM. Comprehensive Assessment Manual. Rochester, New York: University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry; 2001.

39. Anonymous. ACGME Outcome Project: American Board of Medical Specialties; 2000.

40. Hays RB, Fabb WE, Van der Vleuten CPM. Reliability of the fellowship examination of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Teach Learn Med 1995;7:43-50.

41. Wass V, McGibbon D, Van der Vleuten C. Composite undergraduate clinical examinations: how should the components be combined to maximize reliability? Med Educ 2001;35:326-30.


Table 1: Reliability estimates of different assessment instruments as a function of testing time.

Instrument


Description



Reliability for Different Testing Times

1 hour

2 hours

4 hours

8 hours

Multiple Choice1,4


Short stem and short menu of options

0.62

0.76

0.93

0.93

Patient Management

Problem1,4




Simulation of patient full scenarios

0.36

0.53

0.69

0.82

Key Feature

Case (Write-in)1,5



Short patient case vignette followed by write-in answer


0.32

0.49

0.66

0.79

Oral

Examination2,6




Oral examination based on patient cases

0.50

0.69

0.82

0.90

Long Case

Examination2,6




Oral examination based on previously unobserved real patient

0.60

0.75

0.86

0.90

OSCE1,8



Simulated realistic encounters in round robin format

0.54

0.69

0.82

0.90

Mini-Clinical Exercise (Mini-CEX)3,9

Short follow-up oral examination based on previously observed real patient

0.73

0.84

0.92

0.96

Practice Video

Assessment2,10



Selected patient-doctor encounters from video recordings in actual practice

0.62

0.76

0.93

0.93

Incognito Standardised Patients3,11


Real consultations scored by undetected simulated patients

0.61

0.76

0.82

0.86


1One-facet all random design with items crossed with persons (pxi)

2Two-facet all random design with judges (examiners) nested within items within persons (j:i:p)

3One-facet all random design with items nested within persons (i:p)

4Norcini JJ, Swanson DB, Grosso LJ, Webster GD. Reliability, validity and efficiency of multiple choice question and patient management problem item formats in assessment of clinical competence. Medical Education 1985;19(3):238-47.

5Hatala R, Norman GR. Adapting the key features examination for a clinical clerkship. Medical Education 2002;36(160-165).

6Swanson DB. A measurement framework for performance-based tests. In: Hart I, Harden R, editors. Further developments in Assessing Clinical Competence. Montreal: Can-Heal publications, 1987:13 - 45.

7Wass V, Jones R, Van der Vleuten C. Standardized or real patients to test clinical competence? The long case revisited. Medical Education 2001;35:321-325.

8Vleuten, C.P.M. van der, Luijk, S.J. van & Swanson, D.B. (1988) Reliability (generalizability) of the Maastricht skills test. Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual Conference on Research in Medical Education (RIME). Chicago: American Association for Medical Colleges, USA.

9Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Duffy FD, Fortna GS. The mini-CEX: a method for assessing clinical skills. Annals of Internal Medicine 2003;138(6):476-481.

10Ram P, Grol R, Rethans JJ, Schouten B, Van der Vleuten CPM, Kester A. Assessment of general practitioners by video observation of communicative and medical performance in daily practice: issues of validity, reliability and feasibility. Medical Education 1999;33(6):447-454.

11Gorter S, Rethans JJ, Van der Heijde D, Scherpbier A, Houben H, Van der Vleuten C, et al. Reproducibility of clinical performance assessment in practice using incognito standardized patients. Medical Education 2002;36(9):827-832





Share with your friends:
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12


The database is protected by copyright ©psyessay.org 2017
send message

    Main page
mental health
health sciences
gandhi university
Rajiv gandhi
Chapter introduction
multiple choice
research methods
south africa
language acquisition
Relationship between
qualitative research
literature review
Curriculum vitae
early childhood
relationship between
Masaryk university
nervous system
Course title
young people
Multiple choice
bangalore karnataka
state university
Original article
academic performance
essay plans
social psychology
psychology chapter
Front matter
United states
Research proposal
sciences bangalore
Mental health
compassion publications
workplace bullying
publications sorted
comparative study
chapter outline
mental illness
Course outline
decision making
sciences karnataka
working memory
Literature review
clinical psychology
college students
systematic review
problem solving
research proposal
human rights
Learning objectives
karnataka proforma