Preliminary Validity Analysis of Pilot Psychological Competence Assessment

2021 ◽  
pp. 135-140
Author(s):  
Yan Zhang ◽  
Yang Liao ◽  
Yishuang Zhang ◽  
Liu Yang
Author(s):  
Randy K. Otto ◽  
Norman G. Poythress ◽  
Robert A. Nicholson ◽  
John F. Edens ◽  
John Monahan ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 8-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth S. Grace ◽  
Elizabeth J. Korinek ◽  
Zung V. Tran

ABSTRACT This study compares key characteristics and performance of physicians referred to a clinical competence assessment and education program by state medical boards (boards) and hospitals. Physicians referred by boards (400) and by hospitals (102) completed a CPEP clinical competence assessment between July 2002 and June 2010. Key characteristics, self-reported specialty, and average performance rating for each group are reported and compared. Results show that, compared with hospital-referred physicians, board-referred physicians were more likely to be male (75.5% versus 88.3%), older (average age 54.1 versus 50.3 years), and less likely to be currently specialty board certified (80.4% versus 61.8%). On a scale of 1 (best) to 4 (worst), average performance was 2.62 for board referrals and 2.36 for hospital referrals. There were no significant differences between board and hospital referrals in the percentage of physicians who graduated from U.S. and Canadian medical schools. The most common specialties referred differed for boards and hospitals. Conclusion: Characteristics of physicians referred to a clinical competence program by boards and hospitals differ in important respects. The authors consider the potential reasons for these differences and whether boards and hospitals are dealing with different subsets of physicians with different types of performance problems. Further study is warranted.


RMD Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e001183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélie Najm ◽  
Alessia Alunno ◽  
Francisca Sivera ◽  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Catherine Haines

ObjectivesTo gain insight into current methods and practices for the assessment of competences during rheumatology training, and to explore the underlying priorities and rationales for competence assessment.MethodsWe used a qualitative approach through online focus groups (FGs) of rheumatology trainers and trainees, separately. The study included five countries—Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. A summary of current practices of assessment of competences was developed, modified and validated by the FGs based on an independent response to a questionnaire. A prioritising method (9 Diamond technique) was then used to identify and justify key assessment priorities.ResultsOverall, 26 participants (12 trainers, 14 trainees) participated in nine online FGs (2 per country, Slovenia 1 joint), totalling 12 hours of online discussion. Strong nationally (the Netherlands, UK) or institutionally (Spain, Slovenia, Denmark) standardised approaches were described. Most groups identified providing frequent formative feedback to trainees for developmental purposes as the highest priority. Most discussions identified a need for improvement, particularly in developing streamlined approaches to portfolios that remain close to clinical practice, protecting time for quality observation and feedback, and adopting systematic approaches to incorporating teamwork and professionalism into assessment systems.ConclusionThis paper presents a clearer picture of the current practice on the assessment of competences in rheumatology in five European countries and the underlying rationale of trainers’ and trainees’ priorities. This work will inform EULAR Points-to-Consider for the assessment of competences in rheumatology training across Europe.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document