K. Yamazaki is senior analyst, Milestones Research and Evaluation, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, Illinois; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7039-4717 .
E.S. Holmboe is chief, Research, Milestones Development and Evaluation Officer, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, Illinois; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0108-6021 .
Acad Med. 2022 Apr 1;97(4):569-576. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004218.
To investigate whether milestone data obtained from clinical competency committee (CCC) ratings in a single specialty reflected the 6 general competency domains framework.
The authors examined milestone ratings from all 275 U.S. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited categorical obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) programs from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. The sample size ranged from 1,371 to 1,438 residents from 275 programs across 4 postgraduate years (PGYs), each with 2 assessment periods. The OBGYN milestones reporting form consisted of 28 subcompetencies under the 6 general competency domains. Milestone ratings were determined by each program's CCC. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) and design effects were calculated for each subcompetency by PGY and assessment period. A multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) perspective was used, and the pooled within-program covariance matrix was obtained to compare the fit of the 6-domain factor model against 3 other plausible models.
Milestone ratings from 5,618 OBGYN residents were examined. Moderate to high ICCs and design effects greater than 2.0 were prevalent among all subcompetencies for both assessment periods, warranting the use of the multilevel approach in applying CFA to the milestone data. The theory-aided split-patient care (PC) factor model, which used the 6 general competency domains but also included 3 factors within the PC domain (obstetric technical skills, gynecology technical skills, and ambulatory care), was consistently shown as the best-fitting model across all PGYs by assessment period conditions, except for one.
The findings indicate that in addition to using the 6 general competency domains framework in their rating process, CCCs may have further distinguished the PC competency domain into 3 meaningful factors. This study provides internal structure validity evidence for the milestones within a single specialty and may shed light on CCCs' understanding of the distinctive content embedded within the milestones.
研究单一专业临床能力委员会(CCC)评分中的里程碑数据是否反映了 6 项通用能力领域框架。
作者检查了 2018 年 7 月 1 日至 2019 年 6 月 30 日期间来自美国 275 个研究生医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)认证的普通妇产科(OBGYN)项目的所有 275 名住院医师的里程碑评分。样本量范围从 275 个项目的 4 个研究生年级(PGY)的 1371 名到 1438 名住院医师不等,每个年级有 2 个评估期。OBGYN 里程碑报告表由 6 个通用能力领域下的 28 个子能力组成。里程碑评分由每个项目的 CCC 确定。根据 PGY 和评估期计算了每个子能力的组内相关系数(ICC)和设计效应。采用多层次验证性因素分析(CFA)的观点,并获得了整个项目内的协方差矩阵,以比较 6 领域因素模型与其他 3 种可能的模型的拟合情况。
检查了 5618 名 OBGYN 住院医师的里程碑评分。两个评估期所有子能力的 ICC 和设计效应均在中等至高度范围内,均大于 2.0,需要在里程碑数据中应用 CFA 时使用多层次方法。理论辅助的分割患者护理(PC)因素模型,该模型使用 6 个通用能力领域,但在 PC 领域内还包括 3 个因素(产科技术技能、妇科技术技能和门诊护理),除了一个评估期外,在所有 PGY 中都显示为最佳拟合模型。
研究结果表明,除了在评分过程中使用 6 个通用能力领域框架外,CCC 可能还将 PC 能力领域进一步细分为 3 个有意义的因素。这项研究为单一专业的里程碑提供了内部结构有效性证据,并可能为 CCC 对里程碑中嵌入的独特内容的理解提供启示。