Literature DB >> 12390466

Generalisability: a key to unlock professional assessment.

Jim Crossley1, Helena Davies, Gerry Humphris, Brian Jolly.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Reliability is defined as the extent to which a result reflects all possible measurements of the same construct. It is an essential measurement characteristic. Unfortunately, there are few objective tests for the most important aspects of the professional role because they are complex and intangible. In addition, professional performance varies markedly from setting to setting and case to case. Both these factors threaten reliability. AIM: This paper describes the classical approach to evaluating reliability and points out the limitations of this approach. It goes on to describe how generalisability theory solves many of these limitations. CONDITIONS: A G-study uses variance component analysis to measure the contributions that all relevant factors make to the result (observer, situation, case, assessee and their interactions). This information can be combined to reflect the reliability of a single observation as a reflection of all possible measurements - a true reflection of reliability. It can also be used to estimate the reliability of a combined sample of several different observations, or to predict how many observations are required with different test formats to achieve a given level of reliability. Worked examples are used to illustrate the concepts.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12390466     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01320.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  28 in total

1.  How to assess your specialist registrar.

Authors:  H Davies; R Howells
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.791

2.  Workplace assessment for licensing in general practice.

Authors:  Tim Swanwick; Nav Chana
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Generalizability of a composite student selection procedure at a university-based chiropractic program.

Authors:  Lotte D O'Neill; Lars Korsholm; Birgitta Wallstedt; Berit Eika; Jan Hartvigsen
Journal:  J Chiropr Educ       Date:  2009

4.  Educational testing and validity of conclusions in the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Authors:  Michael J Peeters; Svetlana A Beltyukova; Beth A Martin
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 2.047

5.  Improving reliability of a residency interview process.

Authors:  Michael J Peeters; Michelle L Serres; Todd E Gundrum
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 2.047

Review 6.  A systematic review of performance assessment tools for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Yusuke Watanabe; Elif Bilgic; Ekaterina Lebedeva; Katherine M McKendy; Liane S Feldman; Gerald M Fried; Melina C Vassiliou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  A Plea for Psychometric Rigor.

Authors:  Michael J Peeters; Lisa M Hayes
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.047

8.  Development and validation of the TOCO-TURBT tool: a summative assessment tool that measures surgical competency in transurethral resection of bladder tumour.

Authors:  Anna H de Vries; Arno M M Muijtjens; Hilde G J van Genugten; Ad J M Hendrikx; Evert L Koldewijn; Barbara M A Schout; Cees P M van der Vleuten; Cordula Wagner; Irene M Tjiam; Jeroen J G van Merriënboer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Monoanion inhibition and 35Cl nuclear magnetic resonance studies of renal dipeptidase.

Authors:  L G Ferren; R L Ward; B J Campbell
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  1975-12-02       Impact factor: 3.162

10.  Modification of an OSCE format to enhance patient continuity in a high-stakes assessment of clinical performance.

Authors:  Rose Hatala; Sharon Marr; Cary Cuncic; C Maria Bacchus
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.