BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestone Project was implemented in 2014 to standardize assessments and progression of residents. While it is recommended that milestones not be used as tools for direct assessments of resident competency, many programs have used or adapted milestone tools for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore use of the most frequent milestone level at which a resident was evaluated (ie, the mode), and compared this to the standard practice of using the arithmetic mean for summarizing performance. METHODS: We reviewed all Family Medicine Milestone evaluations from 1 program for the first 2 academic years of milestone implementation. Mean and mode scores were calculated across 24 unique residents, 841 evaluation forms, and 5897 measurements. The proportion of overestimation errors (where the mean is at least 0.5 larger than the mode) and underestimation errors (where the mean is at least 0.5 less than the mode) were then compared across resident training year and subcompetency. RESULTS: For the 24 residents, an estimation error occurred in 175 of 792 of the comparisons (22%). Of these errors, 118 (67%) were overestimation errors. First-year residents accounted for 55% (96 of 175) of all estimation errors. All subcompetencies had some estimation errors, with 6 having greater than 5%. CONCLUSIONS: If the trend for using the milestones as stand-alone assessment tools is to continue, aggregating data by using frequency distributions and mode would be a more stable and appropriate approach given their nominal or, at best, ordinal nature.
BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestone Project was implemented in 2014 to standardize assessments and progression of residents. While it is recommended that milestones not be used as tools for direct assessments of resident competency, many programs have used or adapted milestone tools for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore use of the most frequent milestone level at which a resident was evaluated (ie, the mode), and compared this to the standard practice of using the arithmetic mean for summarizing performance. METHODS: We reviewed all Family Medicine Milestone evaluations from 1 program for the first 2 academic years of milestone implementation. Mean and mode scores were calculated across 24 unique residents, 841 evaluation forms, and 5897 measurements. The proportion of overestimation errors (where the mean is at least 0.5 larger than the mode) and underestimation errors (where the mean is at least 0.5 less than the mode) were then compared across resident training year and subcompetency. RESULTS: For the 24 residents, an estimation error occurred in 175 of 792 of the comparisons (22%). Of these errors, 118 (67%) were overestimation errors. First-year residents accounted for 55% (96 of 175) of all estimation errors. All subcompetencies had some estimation errors, with 6 having greater than 5%. CONCLUSIONS: If the trend for using the milestones as stand-alone assessment tools is to continue, aggregating data by using frequency distributions and mode would be a more stable and appropriate approach given their nominal or, at best, ordinal nature.
Authors: Eric S Holmboe; Kenji Yamazaki; Laura Edgar; Lisa Conforti; Nicholas Yaghmour; Rebecca S Miller; Stanley J Hamstra Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2015-09