Suppr超能文献

对能力进展年度评估(ARCP)影响的认知:一项混合方法的案例研究。

Perceptions of the impact of annual review of competence progression (ARCP): a mixed methods case study.

作者信息

Roberts Sam, MacPherson Barbara

机构信息

Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, Steeton, UK and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

University of Leeds School of Medicine, Leeds, UK.

出版信息

Clin Med (Lond). 2021 May;21(3):e257-e262. doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0890.

Abstract

The annual review of competence progression (ARCP) is a high-stakes assessment which all UK postgraduate trainees undertake to ensure competence progression. Previous evaluations of the effectiveness of the ARCP as an assessment have reported deficiencies in both validity and reliability, however, there has been little focus on the educational impact of the ARCP.We conducted a mixed methods case study involving questionnaire, interviews and a focus group examining the impact of the ARCP on a respiratory higher specialist training programme. Participants included both trainers and trainees.Perceptions of impact were mixed. The ARCP was reported to promote broad curriculum coverage, enable educational planning, provide educational governance and facilitate relationships with supervisors. However, participants reported that activities promoted by the ARCP may detract from learning and that issues of reliability and validity undermined the process. In some cases, this was reported to lead to disillusionment and stress for trainees. Concerns were raised that the process promoted a reductionist approach to education.This research has resulted in several changes to local training, however, it has potential implications for the ARCP as a wider process. Trainers should be cognisant of the shortcomings of assessments and their impact on trainees, training and the future of the profession.

摘要

年度能力进展评估(ARCP)是一项高风险评估,所有英国研究生培训生都要参加该评估以确保能力的进展。先前对ARCP作为一种评估方式的有效性评估报告了其在效度和信度方面的不足,然而,很少有人关注ARCP的教育影响。我们进行了一项混合方法的案例研究,包括问卷调查、访谈和焦点小组讨论,以考察ARCP对一个呼吸内科高级专科培训项目的影响。参与者包括培训者和受训者。对影响的看法不一。据报告,ARCP能促进广泛的课程覆盖,有助于教育规划,提供教育管理并促进与导师的关系。然而,参与者报告称,ARCP所推动的活动可能会妨碍学习,而且信度和效度问题破坏了这一过程。在某些情况下,这据报告会导致受训者的幻灭感和压力。有人担心该过程会促进一种简化论的教育方法。这项研究已导致当地培训发生了一些变化,然而,它对更广泛层面的ARCP也有潜在影响。培训者应该认识到评估的缺点及其对受训者、培训和该专业未来的影响。

相似文献

1
Perceptions of the impact of annual review of competence progression (ARCP): a mixed methods case study.
Clin Med (Lond). 2021 May;21(3):e257-e262. doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0890.
4
Revalidation for trainees and the annual review of competency progression (ARCP).
Clin Med (Lond). 2013 Dec;13(6):570-2. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.13-6-570.
5
Annual review of competence: trainees' perspective.
Clin Teach. 2013 Dec;10(6):394-8. doi: 10.1111/tct.12040.
6
Differences in progression by surgical specialty: a national cohort study.
BMJ Open. 2022 Feb 9;12(2):e053391. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053391.
7
Postgraduate medical education quality metrics panels can be enhanced by including learner outcomes.
Postgrad Med J. 2021 Nov;97(1153):690-694. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138669. Epub 2020 Nov 12.
8
Evaluation of an established learning portfolio.
Clin Teach. 2013 Feb;10(1):21-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00599.x.
9
Personal Characteristics Associated with Progression in Trauma and Orthopaedic Specialty Training: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.
J Surg Educ. 2022 Jan-Feb;79(1):253-259. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.06.027. Epub 2021 Jul 27.

本文引用的文献

1
Beyond 'driving': The relationship between assessment, performance and learning.
Med Educ. 2020 Jan;54(1):54-59. doi: 10.1111/medu.13935. Epub 2019 Aug 26.
2
Assessing professional competence: a critical review of the Annual Review of Competence Progression.
J R Soc Med. 2019 Jun;112(6):236-244. doi: 10.1177/0141076819848113. Epub 2019 May 24.
3
The Hidden Curricula of Medical Education: A Scoping Review.
Acad Med. 2018 Apr;93(4):648-656. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002004.
4
The new UK internal medicine curriculum .
Clin Med (Lond). 2017 Apr;17(2):103-104. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-2-103.
6
Curriculum development for the workplace using Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs): AMEE Guide No. 99.
Med Teach. 2015;37(11):983-1002. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1060308. Epub 2015 Jul 14.
7
Quantitative and qualitative methods in medical education research: AMEE Guide No 90: Part I.
Med Teach. 2014 Sep;36(9):746-56. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.915298. Epub 2014 May 20.
8
Annual review of competence: trainees' perspective.
Clin Teach. 2013 Dec;10(6):394-8. doi: 10.1111/tct.12040.
9
Scylla or Charybdis? Can we navigate between objectification and judgement in assessment?
Med Educ. 2012 Sep;46(9):914-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04310.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验