Crowdsource authoring as a tool for enhancing the quality of competency assessments in healthcare professions
The current Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is complex, costly, and difficult to provide high-quality assessments. This pilot study employed a focus group and debugging stage to test the Crowdsource Authoring Assessment Tool (CAAT) for the creation and sharing of assessment tools us...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2023-11, Vol.18 (11), p.e0278571-e0278571 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0278571 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | e0278571 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 18 |
| creator | Lin, Che-Wei Clinciu, Daniel L Salcedo, Daniel Huang, Chih-Wei Kang, Enoch Yi No Li, Yu-Chuan (Jack) |
| description | The current Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is complex, costly, and difficult to provide high-quality assessments. This pilot study employed a focus group and debugging stage to test the Crowdsource Authoring Assessment Tool (CAAT) for the creation and sharing of assessment tools used in editing and customizing, to match specific users' needs, and to provide higher-quality checklists. Competency assessment international experts (n = 50) were asked to 1) participate in and experience the CAAT system when editing their own checklist, 2) edit a urinary catheterization checklist using CAAT, and 3) complete a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire consisting of 14 items to evaluate its four domains. The study occurred between October 2018 and May 2019. The median time for developing a new checklist using the CAAT was 65.76 minutes whereas the traditional method required 167.90 minutes. The CAAT system enabled quicker checklist creation and editing regardless of the experience and native language of participants. Participants also expressed the CAAT enhanced checklist development with 96% of them willing to recommend this tool to others. The use of a crowdsource authoring tool as revealed by this study has efficiently reduced the time to almost a third it would take when using the traditional method. In addition, it allows collaborations to partake on a simple platform which also promotes contributions in checklist creation, editing, and rating. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0278571 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_3069192117</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A771217847</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_37157ee345154b0fbc09fe1c4b50dff9</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A771217847</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c619t-458875c0b1dde9d63517d2517d785eb14639001f6b10a75628e20d2fcb6d84b03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhosouK7-A8GAIHoxY5K2SXsly6DuwMKCX7chTU-mGdpkNklX59-b7lTZyl5IoAknz3nT83JOlr0keE1yTt7v3eit7NcHZ2GNKa9KTh5lZ6TO6YpRnD--d36aPQthj3GZV4ydZcPGu59tSAIKkBxj57yxOyQDkig61yPtPALbSaumeOwA3YyyN_GInEbKDQeIYNUxZQQIYQAbAzIWdSD72CnpAR280-nKOBueZ0-07AO8mPfz7Punj982l6ur68_bzcXVSjFSx1VRVhUvFW5I20LdsrwkvKXTJ5UGDSlYXmNMNGsIlrxktAKKW6pVw9qqaHB-nr066R56F8RsTxA5ZjWpKSE8EdsT0Tq5FwdvBumPwkkj7gLO74T00ageRHK45AB5UZIyietG4VoDUUVT4lbrOml9mF8bmwFalTzwsl-ILm-s6cTO3QqCGSUVm_737azg3c0IIYrBBAV9Ly24MQhaVSynHLMqoa__QR8ub6Z2MlVgrHbpYTWJigvOCSW8KiZq_QCVVguDUamZtEnxRcK7RUJiIvyKOzmGILZfv_w_e_1jyb65x556J7h-jFPTLMHiBCrvQvCg_7pMsJhm4Y8bYpoFMc9C_huNi_z5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3069192117</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Crowdsource authoring as a tool for enhancing the quality of competency assessments in healthcare professions</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Lin, Che-Wei ; Clinciu, Daniel L ; Salcedo, Daniel ; Huang, Chih-Wei ; Kang, Enoch Yi No ; Li, Yu-Chuan (Jack)</creator><creatorcontrib>Lin, Che-Wei ; Clinciu, Daniel L ; Salcedo, Daniel ; Huang, Chih-Wei ; Kang, Enoch Yi No ; Li, Yu-Chuan (Jack)</creatorcontrib><description>The current Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is complex, costly, and difficult to provide high-quality assessments. This pilot study employed a focus group and debugging stage to test the Crowdsource Authoring Assessment Tool (CAAT) for the creation and sharing of assessment tools used in editing and customizing, to match specific users' needs, and to provide higher-quality checklists. Competency assessment international experts (n = 50) were asked to 1) participate in and experience the CAAT system when editing their own checklist, 2) edit a urinary catheterization checklist using CAAT, and 3) complete a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire consisting of 14 items to evaluate its four domains. The study occurred between October 2018 and May 2019. The median time for developing a new checklist using the CAAT was 65.76 minutes whereas the traditional method required 167.90 minutes. The CAAT system enabled quicker checklist creation and editing regardless of the experience and native language of participants. Participants also expressed the CAAT enhanced checklist development with 96% of them willing to recommend this tool to others. The use of a crowdsource authoring tool as revealed by this study has efficiently reduced the time to almost a third it would take when using the traditional method. In addition, it allows collaborations to partake on a simple platform which also promotes contributions in checklist creation, editing, and rating.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278571</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Authoring ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Catheterization ; Check lists ; Collaboration ; Confidentiality ; Crowdsourcing ; Editing ; Encyclopedias ; Engineering and Technology ; Evaluation ; Focus groups ; Medical colleges ; Medical education ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; People and Places ; Quality assessment ; Research and analysis methods ; Skills ; Social networks ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2023-11, Vol.18 (11), p.e0278571-e0278571</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2023 Lin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2023 Lin et al 2023 Lin et al</rights><rights>2023 Lin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c619t-458875c0b1dde9d63517d2517d785eb14639001f6b10a75628e20d2fcb6d84b03</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1088-2775 ; 0000-0001-6497-4232</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10621860/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10621860/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79343,79344</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lin, Che-Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clinciu, Daniel L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salcedo, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Chih-Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Enoch Yi No</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Yu-Chuan (Jack)</creatorcontrib><title>Crowdsource authoring as a tool for enhancing the quality of competency assessments in healthcare professions</title><title>PloS one</title><description>The current Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is complex, costly, and difficult to provide high-quality assessments. This pilot study employed a focus group and debugging stage to test the Crowdsource Authoring Assessment Tool (CAAT) for the creation and sharing of assessment tools used in editing and customizing, to match specific users' needs, and to provide higher-quality checklists. Competency assessment international experts (n = 50) were asked to 1) participate in and experience the CAAT system when editing their own checklist, 2) edit a urinary catheterization checklist using CAAT, and 3) complete a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire consisting of 14 items to evaluate its four domains. The study occurred between October 2018 and May 2019. The median time for developing a new checklist using the CAAT was 65.76 minutes whereas the traditional method required 167.90 minutes. The CAAT system enabled quicker checklist creation and editing regardless of the experience and native language of participants. Participants also expressed the CAAT enhanced checklist development with 96% of them willing to recommend this tool to others. The use of a crowdsource authoring tool as revealed by this study has efficiently reduced the time to almost a third it would take when using the traditional method. In addition, it allows collaborations to partake on a simple platform which also promotes contributions in checklist creation, editing, and rating.</description><subject>Authoring</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Catheterization</subject><subject>Check lists</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Confidentiality</subject><subject>Crowdsourcing</subject><subject>Editing</subject><subject>Encyclopedias</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Focus groups</subject><subject>Medical colleges</subject><subject>Medical education</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Research and analysis methods</subject><subject>Skills</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhosouK7-A8GAIHoxY5K2SXsly6DuwMKCX7chTU-mGdpkNklX59-b7lTZyl5IoAknz3nT83JOlr0keE1yTt7v3eit7NcHZ2GNKa9KTh5lZ6TO6YpRnD--d36aPQthj3GZV4ydZcPGu59tSAIKkBxj57yxOyQDkig61yPtPALbSaumeOwA3YyyN_GInEbKDQeIYNUxZQQIYQAbAzIWdSD72CnpAR280-nKOBueZ0-07AO8mPfz7Punj982l6ur68_bzcXVSjFSx1VRVhUvFW5I20LdsrwkvKXTJ5UGDSlYXmNMNGsIlrxktAKKW6pVw9qqaHB-nr066R56F8RsTxA5ZjWpKSE8EdsT0Tq5FwdvBumPwkkj7gLO74T00ageRHK45AB5UZIyietG4VoDUUVT4lbrOml9mF8bmwFalTzwsl-ILm-s6cTO3QqCGSUVm_737azg3c0IIYrBBAV9Ly24MQhaVSynHLMqoa__QR8ub6Z2MlVgrHbpYTWJigvOCSW8KiZq_QCVVguDUamZtEnxRcK7RUJiIvyKOzmGILZfv_w_e_1jyb65x556J7h-jFPTLMHiBCrvQvCg_7pMsJhm4Y8bYpoFMc9C_huNi_z5</recordid><startdate>20231102</startdate><enddate>20231102</enddate><creator>Lin, Che-Wei</creator><creator>Clinciu, Daniel L</creator><creator>Salcedo, Daniel</creator><creator>Huang, Chih-Wei</creator><creator>Kang, Enoch Yi No</creator><creator>Li, Yu-Chuan (Jack)</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1088-2775</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6497-4232</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231102</creationdate><title>Crowdsource authoring as a tool for enhancing the quality of competency assessments in healthcare professions</title><author>Lin, Che-Wei ; Clinciu, Daniel L ; Salcedo, Daniel ; Huang, Chih-Wei ; Kang, Enoch Yi No ; Li, Yu-Chuan (Jack)</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c619t-458875c0b1dde9d63517d2517d785eb14639001f6b10a75628e20d2fcb6d84b03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Authoring</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Catheterization</topic><topic>Check lists</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Confidentiality</topic><topic>Crowdsourcing</topic><topic>Editing</topic><topic>Encyclopedias</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Focus groups</topic><topic>Medical colleges</topic><topic>Medical education</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Research and analysis methods</topic><topic>Skills</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lin, Che-Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clinciu, Daniel L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salcedo, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Chih-Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Enoch Yi No</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Yu-Chuan (Jack)</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lin, Che-Wei</au><au>Clinciu, Daniel L</au><au>Salcedo, Daniel</au><au>Huang, Chih-Wei</au><au>Kang, Enoch Yi No</au><au>Li, Yu-Chuan (Jack)</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Crowdsource authoring as a tool for enhancing the quality of competency assessments in healthcare professions</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2023-11-02</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e0278571</spage><epage>e0278571</epage><pages>e0278571-e0278571</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The current Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is complex, costly, and difficult to provide high-quality assessments. This pilot study employed a focus group and debugging stage to test the Crowdsource Authoring Assessment Tool (CAAT) for the creation and sharing of assessment tools used in editing and customizing, to match specific users' needs, and to provide higher-quality checklists. Competency assessment international experts (n = 50) were asked to 1) participate in and experience the CAAT system when editing their own checklist, 2) edit a urinary catheterization checklist using CAAT, and 3) complete a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire consisting of 14 items to evaluate its four domains. The study occurred between October 2018 and May 2019. The median time for developing a new checklist using the CAAT was 65.76 minutes whereas the traditional method required 167.90 minutes. The CAAT system enabled quicker checklist creation and editing regardless of the experience and native language of participants. Participants also expressed the CAAT enhanced checklist development with 96% of them willing to recommend this tool to others. The use of a crowdsource authoring tool as revealed by this study has efficiently reduced the time to almost a third it would take when using the traditional method. In addition, it allows collaborations to partake on a simple platform which also promotes contributions in checklist creation, editing, and rating.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0278571</doi><tpages>e0278571</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1088-2775</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6497-4232</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2023-11, Vol.18 (11), p.e0278571-e0278571 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_3069192117 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Authoring Biology and Life Sciences Catheterization Check lists Collaboration Confidentiality Crowdsourcing Editing Encyclopedias Engineering and Technology Evaluation Focus groups Medical colleges Medical education Medicine and Health Sciences People and Places Quality assessment Research and analysis methods Skills Social networks Social Sciences |
| title | Crowdsource authoring as a tool for enhancing the quality of competency assessments in healthcare professions |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T05%3A23%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Crowdsource%20authoring%20as%20a%20tool%20for%20enhancing%20the%20quality%20of%20competency%20assessments%20in%20healthcare%20professions&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Lin,%20Che-Wei&rft.date=2023-11-02&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e0278571&rft.epage=e0278571&rft.pages=e0278571-e0278571&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0278571&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA771217847%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3069192117&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A771217847&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_37157ee345154b0fbc09fe1c4b50dff9&rfr_iscdi=true |