S R Kisely1, S P Donnan. 1. Department of Public Health and Health Promotion, University of Manchester Medical School.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment of competence is of growing importance in modern educational theory. This paper reports the results of a study to investigate the views of Part II examiners and public health trainees about whether an agreed list of competencies for the practice of public health medicine could be determined. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to Part II examiners and representatives of the Trainee Members Committee of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine. RESULT: A total of 90 questionnaires were sent. Seventy per cent of Part II examiners and 70 per cent of the Trainee Members Committee returned questionnaires. There was a high degree of consensus amongst respondents that most of the skills listed in the Faculty Handbook as being necessary for the completion of training should form core competencies for the Part II examination. Sections of the syllabus dealing with epidemiology and disease prevention were also seen as core competencies. There was less support for the assessment of attitudes or other sections of the Handbook syllabus. The written reports and oral examination were seen as being complementary, with respondents listing different competencies as being appropriately assessed by the two methods. There was little support for the introduction of a standardized skills examination. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess the face validity of possible components for the Part II examination using the views of both trainees and Part II examiners. This could form the first step to the introduction of an agreed set of competency areas into the examination.
BACKGROUND: The assessment of competence is of growing importance in modern educational theory. This paper reports the results of a study to investigate the views of Part II examiners and public health trainees about whether an agreed list of competencies for the practice of public health medicine could be determined. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to Part II examiners and representatives of the Trainee Members Committee of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine. RESULT: A total of 90 questionnaires were sent. Seventy per cent of Part II examiners and 70 per cent of the Trainee Members Committee returned questionnaires. There was a high degree of consensus amongst respondents that most of the skills listed in the Faculty Handbook as being necessary for the completion of training should form core competencies for the Part II examination. Sections of the syllabus dealing with epidemiology and disease prevention were also seen as core competencies. There was less support for the assessment of attitudes or other sections of the Handbook syllabus. The written reports and oral examination were seen as being complementary, with respondents listing different competencies as being appropriately assessed by the two methods. There was little support for the introduction of a standardized skills examination. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess the face validity of possible components for the Part II examination using the views of both trainees and Part II examiners. This could form the first step to the introduction of an agreed set of competency areas into the examination.