Literature DB >> 28116956

The validity of the Annual Review of Competence Progression: a qualitative interview study of the perceptions of junior doctors and their trainers.

Rowena Viney1, Antonia Rich1, Sarah Needleman2, Ann Griffin1, Katherine Woolf1.   

Abstract

Objective To investigate trainee doctors' and trainers' perceptions of the validity of the Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) using Messick's conceptualisation of construct validity. Design Qualitative semi-structured focus groups and interviews with trainees and trainers. Setting Postgraduate medical training in London, Kent Surrey and Sussex, Yorkshire and Humber, and Wales in November/December 2015. Part of a larger study about the fairness of postgraduate medical training. Participants Ninety-six trainees and 41 trainers, comprising UK and international medical graduates from Foundation, General Practice, Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Psychiatry, Radiology, and Surgery, at all levels of training. Main outcome measures Trainee and trainer perceptions of the validity of the ARCP as an assessment tool. Results Participants recognised the need for assessment, but were generally dissatisfied with ARCPs, especially UK graduate trainees. Participants criticised the perceived tick-box nature of ARCPs as measuring clerical rather than clinical ability, and which they found detrimental to learning. Trainees described being able to populate their e-portfolios with just positive feedback; they also experienced difficulty getting assessments signed off by supervisors. ARCPs were perceived as poor at identifying struggling trainees and/or as discouraging excellence by focussing on minimal competency. Positive experiences of ARCPs arose when trainees could discuss their progress with interested supervisors. Conclusions Trainee and trainer criticisms of ARCPs can be conceptualised as evidence that ARCPs lack validity as an assessment tool. Ongoing reforms to workplace-based assessments could address negative perceptions of the 'tick-box' elements, encourage constructive input from seniors and allow trainees to demonstrate excellence as well as minimal competency, while keeping patients safe.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ARCP; Qualitative; assessment; medical education; medical training; validity; workplace-based assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28116956      PMCID: PMC5349379          DOI: 10.1177/0141076817690713

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Med        ISSN: 0141-0768            Impact factor:   5.344


  16 in total

1.  Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data.

Authors:  Susan M Downing
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 6.251

2.  Monkey see, monkey do: a critique of the competency model in graduate medical education.

Authors:  Martin Talbot
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 6.251

3.  Annual review of competence: trainees' perspective.

Authors:  Helen Goodyear; David Wall; Taruna Bindal
Journal:  Clin Teach       Date:  2013-12

Review 4.  Workplace-based assessment: a review of user perceptions and strategies to address the identified shortcomings.

Authors:  Jonathan Massie; Jason M Ali
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2015-05-24       Impact factor: 3.853

5.  Mini-CEX as a workplace-based assessment tool for interns in an emergency department--does cost outweigh value?

Authors:  Victoria Brazil; Leanne Ratcliffe; Jianzhen Zhang; Lorna Davin
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 3.650

6.  Nuts and bolts of entrustable professional activities.

Authors:  Olle Ten Cate
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2013-03

7.  Perceptions of purpose, value, and process of the mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise in anesthesia training.

Authors:  Damian J Castanelli; Tanisha Jowsey; Yan Chen; Jennifer M Weller
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 5.063

Review 8.  Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application.

Authors:  David A Cook; Thomas J Beckman
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) performance of doctors who passed Professional and Linguistic Assessments Board (PLAB) tests compared with UK medical graduates: national data linkage study.

Authors:  Paul A Tiffin; Jan Illing; Adetayo S Kasim; John C McLachlan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-04-17

Review 10.  A critical review of the core medical training curriculum in the UK: A medical education perspective.

Authors:  Faidon-Marios Laskaratos; Despoina Gkotsi; Eleftheria Panteliou
Journal:  JRSM Open       Date:  2014-01-07
View more
  7 in total

1.  An unsafe world that must learn from conflict.

Authors:  Kamran Abbasi
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 2.  Being a good educational supervisor.

Authors:  J Barrie; S Walwyn
Journal:  BJA Educ       Date:  2020-12-07

Review 3.  Assessing professional competence: a critical review of the Annual Review of Competence Progression.

Authors:  Katherine Woolf; Michael Page; Rowena Viney
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 18.000

4.  Exploring reasons for differences in performance between UK and international medical graduates in the Membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners Applied Knowledge Test: a cognitive interview study.

Authors:  Julie Pattinson; Carol Blow; Bijoy Sinha; Aloysius Siriwardena
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  Factors affecting the UK junior doctor workforce retention crisis: an integrative review.

Authors:  Florence Katie Lock; Daniele Carrieri
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  UK nationals who received their medical degrees abroad: selection into, and subsequent performance in postgraduate training: a national data linkage study.

Authors:  Paul A Tiffin; James Orr; Lewis W Paton; Daniel T Smith; John J Norcini
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  '10% of your medical students will cause 90% of your problems': a prospective correlational study.

Authors:  Marina Sawdon; J C McLachlan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.