Literature DB >> 8204317

Consultation competence in general practice: establishing the face validity of prioritized criteria in the Leicester assessment package.

R C Fraser1, R K McKinley, H Mulholland.   

Abstract

AIM: This study set out to test the face validity of prioritized criteria of consultation competence in general practice as contained in the Leicester assessment package.
METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to a geographically stratified random sample of 100 members of the United Kingdom Association of Course Organisers to seek their views on the categories, components and weightings contained in the Leicester assessment package and to determine the proportion of respondents who rejected or suggested a new category, component or weighting or reallocated components to other categories or amended weightings. Their views were sought on a six-point scale (strongly approve, approve, tend to approve, tend to disapprove, disapprove and strongly disapprove).
RESULTS: There was a 73% response rate. Of the respondents 99% either strongly approved or approved of the overall set of categories of consultation competence. Only two respondents (3%) expressed any disapproval of individual categories. Thirty five of the 39 suggested components of consultation competence were supported by more than 80% of respondents. There was minimal support for excluding any categories or components of consultation competence, for moving any components to different categories or for the inclusion of new categories or components. Eighty eight per cent of respondents were in favour of the need to identify priorities between any agreed categories of consultation competence and 79% expressed approval of the suggested weightings. Although 42% of respondents indicated a wish for some alteration in weightings, the mean values for all consultation categories suggested by all respondents were almost identical to the original weightings in the Leicester package.
CONCLUSION: The face validity of the categories and components of consultation competence contained in the Leicester assessment package has been established, and the suggested weightings of consultation categories have been validated. Consequently, the criteria contained in the Leicester package can be adopted with confidence as measures against which performance can be judged in formative or summative assessment of consultation performance in general practice.

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8204317      PMCID: PMC1238811     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  8 in total

1.  Relative contributions of history-taking, physical examination, and laboratory investigation to diagnosis and management of medical outpatients.

Authors:  J R Hampton; M J Harrison; J R Mitchell; J S Prichard; C Seymour
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1975-05-31

2.  A national standard for entry into general practice.

Authors:  T Carney
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-12-12

3.  Trainee assessment--a regional survey.

Authors:  L M Campbell; T S Murray
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Assessment of general practice consultations: content validity of a rating scale.

Authors:  R B Hays
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 6.251

5.  Assessing clinical competence.

Authors:  P Maguire
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-01-07

6.  The diagnosing mind.

Authors:  E J Campbell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1987-04-11       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  An instrument for assessment of videotapes of general practitioners' performance.

Authors:  J Cox; H Mulholland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-04-17

8.  Costs of unnecessary tests.

Authors:  G Sandler
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1979-07-07
  8 in total
  15 in total

1.  Assessment of management in general practice: validation of a practice visit method.

Authors:  P van den Hombergh; R Grol; H J van den Hoogen; W J van den Bosch
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  A model for clinical governance in primary care groups.

Authors:  R Baker; M Lakhani; R Fraser; F Cheater
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-03-20

3.  Assessment of competence.

Authors:  L M Campbell; T S Murray
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Randomised controlled trial of tailored strategies to implement guidelines for the management of patients with depression in general practice.

Authors:  R Baker; S Reddish; N Robertson; H Hearnshaw; B Jones
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Leicester assessment package.

Authors:  R C Fraser; R K McKinley; H Mulholland
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Leicester assessment package.

Authors:  G A Rutt
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Leicester assessment package.

Authors:  D Braunholtz
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Developing family practice in Kuwait.

Authors:  R C Fraser
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Consultation competence in general practice: testing the reliability of the Leicester assessment package.

Authors:  R C Fraser; R K McKinley; H Mulholland
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 5.386

10.  Deploying a clinical innovation in the context of actor-patient consultations in general practice: a prelude to a formal clinical trial.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.