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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical journal of Australia 2016-09, Vol.205 (5), p.212-216
Hauptverfasser: Nair, Balakrishnan (Kichu) R, Moonen‐van Loon, Joyce MW, Parvathy, Mulavana S, Vleuten, Cees PM
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