Stevens Sebastian, Read James, Baines Rebecca, Chatterjee Arunangsu, Archer Julian
Collaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research & Assessment (CAMERA), Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry (PU PSMD), University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL, UK.
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2018 Fall;38(4):262-268. doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000219.
Over the past 10 years, a number of systematic reviews have evaluated the validity of multisource feedback (MSF) to assess and quality-assure medical practice. The purpose of this study is to synthesize the results from existing reviews to provide a holistic overview of the validity evidence.
This review identified eight systematic reviews evaluating the validity of MSF published between January 2006 and October 2016. Using a standardized data extraction form, two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics. A framework of validation developed by the American Psychological Association was used to appraise the validity evidence within each systematic review.
In terms of validity evidence, each of the eight reviews demonstrated evidence across at least one domain of the American Psychological Association's validity framework. Evidence of assessment validity within the domains of "internal structure" and "relationship to other variables" has been well established. However, the domains of content validity (ie, ensuring that MSF tools measure what they are intended to measure); consequential validity (ie, evidence of the intended or unintended consequences MSF assessments may have on participants or wider society), and response process validity (ie, the process of standardization and quality control in the delivery and completion of assessments) remain limited.
Evidence for the validity of MSF has, across a number of domains, been well established. However, the size and quality of the existing evidence remains variable. To determine the extent to which MSF is considered a valid instrument to assess medical performance, future research is required to determine the following: (1) how best to design and deliver MSF assessments that address the identified limitations of existing tools and (2) how to ensure that involvement within MSF supports positive changes in practice. Such research is integral if MSF is to continue to inform medical performance and subsequent improvements in the quality and safety of patient care.
在过去十年中,多项系统评价评估了多源反馈(MSF)在评估医疗实践及保证其质量方面的有效性。本研究旨在综合现有评价结果,全面概述有效性证据。
本评价纳入了八项在2006年1月至2016年10月期间发表的评估MSF有效性的系统评价。两名独立评价员使用标准化的数据提取表提取研究特征。采用美国心理学会制定的验证框架对每项系统评价中的有效性证据进行评估。
就有效性证据而言,八项评价中的每一项都至少在与美国心理学会有效性框架的一个领域相关的证据方面有所体现。在“内部结构”和“与其他变量的关系”领域内,评估有效性的证据已经得到充分证实。然而,内容有效性(即确保MSF工具测量其预期测量的内容)、结果有效性(即MSF评估对参与者或更广泛社会可能产生的预期或非预期后果的证据)以及反应过程有效性(即在评估的实施和完成过程中的标准化和质量控制过程)方面的证据仍然有限。
MSF有效性在多个领域的证据已经得到充分证实。然而,现有证据的规模和质量仍然参差不齐。为了确定MSF在多大程度上被视为评估医疗绩效的有效工具,未来的研究需要确定以下两点:(1)如何最好地设计和实施MSF评估,以解决现有工具已确定的局限性;(2)如何确保参与MSF能支持实践中的积极变化。如果MSF要继续为医疗绩效提供信息,并随后改善患者护理的质量和安全性,此类研究不可或缺。