OBJECTIVE: Modern postgraduate medical training requires both accurate and reliable selection procedures. An essential first step is to conduct detailed job analysis studies. This paper reports data on a series of job analyses to develop a competency model for three secondary care specialties (anaesthesia, obstetrics and gynaecology, and paediatrics). METHODS: Three independent job analysis studies were conducted. The content validity of the resulting competency domains was tested using a questionnaire-based study with specialty trainees (specialist registrars [SpRs]) and consultants drawn from the three specialties. Job analysis was carried out in the Yorkshire and the Humber region in the UK. The validation study was administered with additional participants from the West Midlands and Trent regions in the UK. This was an exploratory study. The outcome is a set of competency domains with data on their importance at senior house officer, SpR and consultant grade in each specialty. RESULTS: The study produced a model comprising 14 general competency domains that were common to all the three specialties. However, there were significant between-specialty differences in both definitions of domains and the ratings of importance attached to them. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that a wide range of attributes beyond clinical knowledge and academic achievement need to be considered in order to ensure doctors train and work within a specialty for which they have a particular aptitude. This has significant implications for developing selection criteria for specialty training. Future research should explore the content validity of these competency domains in other secondary care specialties.
OBJECTIVE: Modern postgraduate medical training requires both accurate and reliable selection procedures. An essential first step is to conduct detailed job analysis studies. This paper reports data on a series of job analyses to develop a competency model for three secondary care specialties (anaesthesia, obstetrics and gynaecology, and paediatrics). METHODS: Three independent job analysis studies were conducted. The content validity of the resulting competency domains was tested using a questionnaire-based study with specialty trainees (specialist registrars [SpRs]) and consultants drawn from the three specialties. Job analysis was carried out in the Yorkshire and the Humber region in the UK. The validation study was administered with additional participants from the West Midlands and Trent regions in the UK. This was an exploratory study. The outcome is a set of competency domains with data on their importance at senior house officer, SpR and consultant grade in each specialty. RESULTS: The study produced a model comprising 14 general competency domains that were common to all the three specialties. However, there were significant between-specialty differences in both definitions of domains and the ratings of importance attached to them. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that a wide range of attributes beyond clinical knowledge and academic achievement need to be considered in order to ensure doctors train and work within a specialty for which they have a particular aptitude. This has significant implications for developing selection criteria for specialty training. Future research should explore the content validity of these competency domains in other secondary care specialties.
Authors: Eamonn Ferguson; Andy Buttery; Giulia Miles; Christina Tatalia; David D Clarke; Adam J Lonsdale; Bryn Baxendale; Claire Lawrence Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Fiona Patterson; Emma Rowett; Robert Hale; Marcia Grant; Chris Roberts; Fran Cousans; Stuart Martin Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 2.463