RETRACTED: Composite reliability of workplace‐based assessment for international medical graduates
Objective: The fitness to practise of international medical graduates (IMGs) is usually evaluated with standardised assessment tests. Practising doctors should, however, be assessed on their performance rather than their competency, for which reason workplace‐based assessment (WBA) has gained increa...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medical journal of Australia 2016-09, Vol.205 (5), p.212-216 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 216 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 212 |
container_title | Medical journal of Australia |
container_volume | 205 |
creator | Nair, Balakrishnan (Kichu) R Moonen‐van Loon, Joyce MW Parvathy, Mulavana S Vleuten, Cees PM |
description | Objective: The fitness to practise of international medical graduates (IMGs) is usually evaluated with standardised assessment tests. Practising doctors should, however, be assessed on their performance rather than their competency, for which reason workplace‐based assessment (WBA) has gained increasing attention. Our aim was to assess the composite reliability of WBA instruments for assessing the performance of IMGs.
Design and setting: Between June 2010 and April 2015, 142 IMGs were assessed by 99 calibrated assessors; each cohort was assessed at their workplace over 6 months. The IMGs completed 970 case‐based discussions (CBDs), 1741 Mini‐Clinical Examination Exercises (mini‐CEX) and 1020 multisource feedback (MSF) sessions.
Participants: 103 male and 39 female candidates based in urban and rural hospitals of the Hunter New England Health region, from 28 countries (Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, South Pacific).
Main outcome measures: The reliability of the three WBA tools; the composite reliability of the tools as a group.
Results: The composite reliability of our WBA toolbox program was good: the composite reliability coefficient for five CBDs and 12 mini‐CEX was 0.895 (standard error of measurement, 0.138). When the six MSF results were included, the composite reliability coefficient was 0.899 (standard error of measurement, 0.125).
Conclusions: WBA is a reliable method for assessing IMGs when multiple tools and assessors are used over a period of time. This form of assessment meets the criteria for “good assessment” (reliability ≥ 0.8) and can be applied in other settings. |
doi_str_mv | 10.5694/mja16.00069 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>wiley_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_5694_mja16_00069</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>MJA2212</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1192-9023aac8f44d8576887c015b8e3505b0e730a2f2603000a0fa555c8cb91416c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKxDAYhYMoOI6ufIHspeOfpElad0Mdb4wIQxfuyt80lYy9DEllmJ2P4DP6JNYZ164OBz4OnI-QSwYzqdL4ul0jUzMAUOkRmTDBVSSF1sdkAsBlpHn6ekrOQliPlUmuJ6RaLfLVPMsXtzc069tNH9xgqbeNw9I1btjRvqbb3r9vGjT2-_OrxGAriiHYEFrbDbTuPXXdYH2Hg-s7bGhrK2fGfPNYfeBgwzk5qbEJ9uIvpyS_W-TZQ7R8uX_M5svIMJbyKAUuEE1Sx3GVSK2SRBtgskyskCBLsFoA8porEONFhBqllCYxZcpipoyYkqvDrPF9CN7Wxca7Fv2uYFD8-in2foq9n5GGA711jd39hxbPT3POGRc_GeRpEA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>RETRACTED: Composite reliability of workplace‐based assessment for international medical graduates</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Nair, Balakrishnan (Kichu) R ; Moonen‐van Loon, Joyce MW ; Parvathy, Mulavana S ; Vleuten, Cees PM</creator><creatorcontrib>Nair, Balakrishnan (Kichu) R ; Moonen‐van Loon, Joyce MW ; Parvathy, Mulavana S ; Vleuten, Cees PM</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: The fitness to practise of international medical graduates (IMGs) is usually evaluated with standardised assessment tests. Practising doctors should, however, be assessed on their performance rather than their competency, for which reason workplace‐based assessment (WBA) has gained increasing attention. Our aim was to assess the composite reliability of WBA instruments for assessing the performance of IMGs.
Design and setting: Between June 2010 and April 2015, 142 IMGs were assessed by 99 calibrated assessors; each cohort was assessed at their workplace over 6 months. The IMGs completed 970 case‐based discussions (CBDs), 1741 Mini‐Clinical Examination Exercises (mini‐CEX) and 1020 multisource feedback (MSF) sessions.
Participants: 103 male and 39 female candidates based in urban and rural hospitals of the Hunter New England Health region, from 28 countries (Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, South Pacific).
Main outcome measures: The reliability of the three WBA tools; the composite reliability of the tools as a group.
Results: The composite reliability of our WBA toolbox program was good: the composite reliability coefficient for five CBDs and 12 mini‐CEX was 0.895 (standard error of measurement, 0.138). When the six MSF results were included, the composite reliability coefficient was 0.899 (standard error of measurement, 0.125).
Conclusions: WBA is a reliable method for assessing IMGs when multiple tools and assessors are used over a period of time. This form of assessment meets the criteria for “good assessment” (reliability ≥ 0.8) and can be applied in other settings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-729X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1326-5377</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5694/mja16.00069</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Health services administration</subject><ispartof>Medical journal of Australia, 2016-09, Vol.205 (5), p.212-216</ispartof><rights>2016 AMPCo Pty Ltd. All rights reserved</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1192-9023aac8f44d8576887c015b8e3505b0e730a2f2603000a0fa555c8cb91416c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1192-9023aac8f44d8576887c015b8e3505b0e730a2f2603000a0fa555c8cb91416c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.5694%2Fmja16.00069$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694%2Fmja16.00069$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nair, Balakrishnan (Kichu) R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moonen‐van Loon, Joyce MW</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parvathy, Mulavana S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vleuten, Cees PM</creatorcontrib><title>RETRACTED: Composite reliability of workplace‐based assessment for international medical graduates</title><title>Medical journal of Australia</title><description>Objective: The fitness to practise of international medical graduates (IMGs) is usually evaluated with standardised assessment tests. Practising doctors should, however, be assessed on their performance rather than their competency, for which reason workplace‐based assessment (WBA) has gained increasing attention. Our aim was to assess the composite reliability of WBA instruments for assessing the performance of IMGs.
Design and setting: Between June 2010 and April 2015, 142 IMGs were assessed by 99 calibrated assessors; each cohort was assessed at their workplace over 6 months. The IMGs completed 970 case‐based discussions (CBDs), 1741 Mini‐Clinical Examination Exercises (mini‐CEX) and 1020 multisource feedback (MSF) sessions.
Participants: 103 male and 39 female candidates based in urban and rural hospitals of the Hunter New England Health region, from 28 countries (Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, South Pacific).
Main outcome measures: The reliability of the three WBA tools; the composite reliability of the tools as a group.
Results: The composite reliability of our WBA toolbox program was good: the composite reliability coefficient for five CBDs and 12 mini‐CEX was 0.895 (standard error of measurement, 0.138). When the six MSF results were included, the composite reliability coefficient was 0.899 (standard error of measurement, 0.125).
Conclusions: WBA is a reliable method for assessing IMGs when multiple tools and assessors are used over a period of time. This form of assessment meets the criteria for “good assessment” (reliability ≥ 0.8) and can be applied in other settings.</description><subject>Health services administration</subject><issn>0025-729X</issn><issn>1326-5377</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtKxDAYhYMoOI6ufIHspeOfpElad0Mdb4wIQxfuyt80lYy9DEllmJ2P4DP6JNYZ164OBz4OnI-QSwYzqdL4ul0jUzMAUOkRmTDBVSSF1sdkAsBlpHn6ekrOQliPlUmuJ6RaLfLVPMsXtzc069tNH9xgqbeNw9I1btjRvqbb3r9vGjT2-_OrxGAriiHYEFrbDbTuPXXdYH2Hg-s7bGhrK2fGfPNYfeBgwzk5qbEJ9uIvpyS_W-TZQ7R8uX_M5svIMJbyKAUuEE1Sx3GVSK2SRBtgskyskCBLsFoA8porEONFhBqllCYxZcpipoyYkqvDrPF9CN7Wxca7Fv2uYFD8-in2foq9n5GGA711jd39hxbPT3POGRc_GeRpEA</recordid><startdate>201609</startdate><enddate>201609</enddate><creator>Nair, Balakrishnan (Kichu) R</creator><creator>Moonen‐van Loon, Joyce MW</creator><creator>Parvathy, Mulavana S</creator><creator>Vleuten, Cees PM</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201609</creationdate><title>RETRACTED: Composite reliability of workplace‐based assessment for international medical graduates</title><author>Nair, Balakrishnan (Kichu) R ; Moonen‐van Loon, Joyce MW ; Parvathy, Mulavana S ; Vleuten, Cees PM</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1192-9023aac8f44d8576887c015b8e3505b0e730a2f2603000a0fa555c8cb91416c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Health services administration</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nair, Balakrishnan (Kichu) R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moonen‐van Loon, Joyce MW</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parvathy, Mulavana S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vleuten, Cees PM</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Medical journal of Australia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nair, Balakrishnan (Kichu) R</au><au>Moonen‐van Loon, Joyce MW</au><au>Parvathy, Mulavana S</au><au>Vleuten, Cees PM</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>RETRACTED: Composite reliability of workplace‐based assessment for international medical graduates</atitle><jtitle>Medical journal of Australia</jtitle><date>2016-09</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>205</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>212</spage><epage>216</epage><pages>212-216</pages><issn>0025-729X</issn><eissn>1326-5377</eissn><abstract>Objective: The fitness to practise of international medical graduates (IMGs) is usually evaluated with standardised assessment tests. Practising doctors should, however, be assessed on their performance rather than their competency, for which reason workplace‐based assessment (WBA) has gained increasing attention. Our aim was to assess the composite reliability of WBA instruments for assessing the performance of IMGs.
Design and setting: Between June 2010 and April 2015, 142 IMGs were assessed by 99 calibrated assessors; each cohort was assessed at their workplace over 6 months. The IMGs completed 970 case‐based discussions (CBDs), 1741 Mini‐Clinical Examination Exercises (mini‐CEX) and 1020 multisource feedback (MSF) sessions.
Participants: 103 male and 39 female candidates based in urban and rural hospitals of the Hunter New England Health region, from 28 countries (Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, South Pacific).
Main outcome measures: The reliability of the three WBA tools; the composite reliability of the tools as a group.
Results: The composite reliability of our WBA toolbox program was good: the composite reliability coefficient for five CBDs and 12 mini‐CEX was 0.895 (standard error of measurement, 0.138). When the six MSF results were included, the composite reliability coefficient was 0.899 (standard error of measurement, 0.125).
Conclusions: WBA is a reliable method for assessing IMGs when multiple tools and assessors are used over a period of time. This form of assessment meets the criteria for “good assessment” (reliability ≥ 0.8) and can be applied in other settings.</abstract><doi>10.5694/mja16.00069</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0025-729X |
ispartof | Medical journal of Australia, 2016-09, Vol.205 (5), p.212-216 |
issn | 0025-729X 1326-5377 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_5694_mja16_00069 |
source | Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | Health services administration |
title | RETRACTED: Composite reliability of workplace‐based assessment for international medical graduates |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T07%3A33%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=RETRACTED:%20Composite%20reliability%20of%20workplace%E2%80%90based%20assessment%20for%20international%20medical%20graduates&rft.jtitle=Medical%20journal%20of%20Australia&rft.au=Nair,%20Balakrishnan%20(Kichu)%20R&rft.date=2016-09&rft.volume=205&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=212&rft.epage=216&rft.pages=212-216&rft.issn=0025-729X&rft.eissn=1326-5377&rft_id=info:doi/10.5694/mja16.00069&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_cross%3EMJA2212%3C/wiley_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |