CONTEXT: Continuing professional development (CPD) of general practitioners. OBJECTIVE: Criterion-referenced standards for assessing performance in the real practice of general practitioners (GPs) should be available to identify learning needs or poor performers for CPD. The applicability of common standard setting procedures in authentic assessment has not been investigated. METHODS: To set a standard for assessment of GP-patient communication with video observation of daily practice, we investigated 2 well known examples of 2 different standard setting approaches. An Angoff procedure was applied to 8 written cases. A borderline regression method was applied to videotaped consultations of 88 GPs. The procedures and outcomes were evaluated by the applicability of the procedure, the reliability of the standards and the credibility as perceived by the stakeholders, namely, the GPs. RESULTS: Both methods are applicable and reliable; the obtained standards are credible according to the GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Both modified methods can be used to set a standard for assessment in daily practice. The context in which the standard will be used - i.e. the specific purpose of the standard, the moment the standard must be available or if specific feedback must be given - is important because methods differ in practical aspects.
CONTEXT: Continuing professional development (CPD) of general practitioners. OBJECTIVE: Criterion-referenced standards for assessing performance in the real practice of general practitioners (GPs) should be available to identify learning needs or poor performers for CPD. The applicability of common standard setting procedures in authentic assessment has not been investigated. METHODS: To set a standard for assessment of GP-patient communication with video observation of daily practice, we investigated 2 well known examples of 2 different standard setting approaches. An Angoff procedure was applied to 8 written cases. A borderline regression method was applied to videotaped consultations of 88 GPs. The procedures and outcomes were evaluated by the applicability of the procedure, the reliability of the standards and the credibility as perceived by the stakeholders, namely, the GPs. RESULTS: Both methods are applicable and reliable; the obtained standards are credible according to the GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Both modified methods can be used to set a standard for assessment in daily practice. The context in which the standard will be used - i.e. the specific purpose of the standard, the moment the standard must be available or if specific feedback must be given - is important because methods differ in practical aspects.
Authors: Geurt Essers; Sandra van Dulmen; Chris van Weel; Cees van der Vleuten; Anneke Kramer Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 2.497
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