Bajwa Nadia M, Yudkowsky Rachel, Belli Dominique, Vu Nu Viet, Park Yoon Soo
a Department of Child and Adolescent Medicine , Children's Hospital, Geneva University Hospitals , Geneva , Switzerland.
b Department of Medical Education , University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Medicine , Chicago , Illinois , USA.
Teach Learn Med. 2018 Apr-Jun;30(2):173-183. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2017.1367297. Epub 2017 Nov 30.
Construct: This study aims to provide validity evidence for the standardized Assessment Letter for Pediatrics as a measure of competencies expected of a 1st-year pediatrics resident as part of a pediatric residency admissions process.
The Narrative Letter of Recommendation is a frequently used tool in the residency admissions process even though it has poor interrater reliability, lacks pertinent content, and does not correlate with residency performance. A newer tool, the Standardized Letter, has shown validity evidence for content and interrater reliability in other specialties. We sought to develop and provide validity evidence for the standardized Assessment Letter for Pediatrics.
All 2012 and 2013 applicants invited to interview at the University of Geneva Pediatrics Residency Program provided 2 standardized Assessment Letters. Content for the letter was based on CanMEDS roles and ratings of 6 desired competencies and an overall assessment. Validity evidence was gathered for internal structure (Cronbach's alpha and generalizability), response process (interrater reliability with intraclass correlation), relations to other variables (Pearson's correlation coefficient), and consequences (logistic regression to predict admission).
One hundred fourteen faculty completed 142 standardized Assessment Letters for 71 applicants. Average overall assessment was 3.0 of 4 (SD = 0.59). Cronbach's alpha was 0.93. The G-coefficient was 0.59. The decision study projected that four Assessment Letters are needed to attain a G-coefficient of 0.73. Applicant variance (28.5%) indicated high applicant differentiation. The Assessment Letter intraclass coefficient was 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.43, 0.59]. Assessment Letter scores were correlated with the structured interview (r = .28), 95% CI [0.05, 0.51]; global rating (r = .36), 95% CI [0.13, 0.58]; and admissions decision (r = .25), 95% CI [0.02, 0.46]. Assessment Letter scores did not predict the admissions decision (odds ratio = 1.67, p = .37) after controlling for the unique contribution of the structured interview and global rating scores.
Validity evidence supports use of the Assessment Letter for Pediatrics; future studies should refine items to improve predictive validity and explore how to best integrate the Assessment Letter into the residency admissions process.
构建:本研究旨在为儿科标准化评估信提供效度证据,该评估信是儿科住院医师招录过程中衡量一年级儿科住院医师所需能力的一种手段。
推荐信在住院医师招录过程中是常用工具,但其评分者间信度较差,缺乏相关内容,且与住院医师表现无相关性。一种更新的工具——标准化信件,已在其他专业领域显示出内容效度和评分者间信度的证据。我们试图开发儿科标准化评估信并提供其效度证据。
所有受邀参加日内瓦大学儿科住院医师项目面试的2012年和2013年申请者提供了2封标准化评估信。信的内容基于CanMEDS角色以及对6项期望能力的评分和总体评估。收集了关于内部结构(克朗巴哈系数和概化系数)、反应过程(组内相关系数的评分者间信度)、与其他变量的关系(皮尔逊相关系数)以及结果(预测录取的逻辑回归)的效度证据。
114名教员为71名申请者完成了142封标准化评估信。总体平均评估为4分制中的3.0分(标准差 = 0.59)。克朗巴哈系数为0.93。G系数为0.59。决策研究预计需要4封评估信才能使G系数达到0.73。申请者方差(28.5%)表明申请者区分度较高。评估信组内系数为0.51,95%置信区间(CI)[0.43, 0.59]。评估信分数与结构化面试相关(r = 0.28),95% CI [0.05, 0.51];总体评分相关(r = 0.36),95% CI [0.13, 0.58];与录取决定相关(r = 0.25),95% CI [0.02, 0.46]。在控制了结构化面试和总体评分分数的独特贡献后,评估信分数未能预测录取决定(优势比 = 1.67,p = 0.37)。
效度证据支持使用儿科评估信;未来研究应完善项目以提高预测效度,并探索如何最好地将评估信纳入住院医师招录过程。