R K McKinley1, R C Fraser, C van der Vleuten, A M Hastings. 1. Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a modified version of the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP) in the formative assessment of the consultation performance of medical students with particular reference to validity, inter-assessor reliability, acceptability, feasibility and educational impact. DESIGN: 180 third and fourth year Leicester medical students were directly observed consulting with six general practice patients and independently assessed by a pair of assessors. A total of 70 practice and 16 departmental assessors took part. Performance scores were subjected to generalizability analysis and students' views of the assessment were gathered by questionnaire. RESULTS: Four of the five categories of consultation performance (Interviewing and history taking, Patient management, Problem solving and Behaviour and relationship with patients) were assessed in over 99% of consultations and Physical examination was assessed in 94%. Seventy-six percent of assessors reported that the case mix was 'satisfactory' and 20% that it was 'borderline'; 85% of students believed it to have been satisfactory. Generalizability analysis indicates that two independent assessors assessing the performance of students across six consultations would achieve a reliability of 0.94 in making pass or fail decisions. Ninety-eight percent of students perceived that their particular strengths and weaknesses were correctly identified, 99% that they were given specific advice on how to improve their performance and 98% believed that the feedback they had received would have long-term benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The modified version of the LAP is valid, reliable and feasible in formative assessment of the consultation performance of medical students. Furthermore, almost all students found the process fair and believed it was likely to lead to improvements in their consultation performance. This approach may also be applicable to regulatory assessment as it accurately identifies students at the pass/fail margin.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a modified version of the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP) in the formative assessment of the consultation performance of medical students with particular reference to validity, inter-assessor reliability, acceptability, feasibility and educational impact. DESIGN: 180 third and fourth year Leicester medical students were directly observed consulting with six general practice patients and independently assessed by a pair of assessors. A total of 70 practice and 16 departmental assessors took part. Performance scores were subjected to generalizability analysis and students' views of the assessment were gathered by questionnaire. RESULTS: Four of the five categories of consultation performance (Interviewing and history taking, Patient management, Problem solving and Behaviour and relationship with patients) were assessed in over 99% of consultations and Physical examination was assessed in 94%. Seventy-six percent of assessors reported that the case mix was 'satisfactory' and 20% that it was 'borderline'; 85% of students believed it to have been satisfactory. Generalizability analysis indicates that two independent assessors assessing the performance of students across six consultations would achieve a reliability of 0.94 in making pass or fail decisions. Ninety-eight percent of students perceived that their particular strengths and weaknesses were correctly identified, 99% that they were given specific advice on how to improve their performance and 98% believed that the feedback they had received would have long-term benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The modified version of the LAP is valid, reliable and feasible in formative assessment of the consultation performance of medical students. Furthermore, almost all students found the process fair and believed it was likely to lead to improvements in their consultation performance. This approach may also be applicable to regulatory assessment as it accurately identifies students at the pass/fail margin.
Authors: Moyez Jiwa; Robert K McKinley; Katrina Spilsbury; Hayley Arnet; Marthe Smith Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Simon de Lusignan; Andrew P McGovern; Mohammad Aumran Tahir; Simon Hassan; Simon Jones; Mary Halter; Louise Joly; Vari M Drennan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.240