Suppr超能文献

临床能力评估中,主考者培训能否提高基于工作场所评估的叙事性反馈和授权评分的质量和准确性?一项随机对照试验。

Can Rater Training Improve the Quality and Accuracy of Workplace-Based Assessment Narrative Comments and Entrustment Ratings? A Randomized Controlled Trial.

机构信息

J.R. Kogan is associate dean, Student Success and Professional Development, and professor of medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8426-9506 .

C.J. Dine is associate dean, Evaluation and Assessment, and associate professor of medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5894-0861 .

出版信息

Acad Med. 2023 Feb 1;98(2):237-247. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004819. Epub 2022 Jul 21.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Prior research evaluating workplace-based assessment (WBA) rater training effectiveness has not measured improvement in narrative comment quality and accuracy, nor accuracy of prospective entrustment-supervision ratings. The purpose of this study was to determine whether rater training, using performance dimension and frame of reference training, could improve WBA narrative comment quality and accuracy. A secondary aim was to assess impact on entrustment rating accuracy.

METHOD

This single-blind, multi-institution, randomized controlled trial of a multifaceted, longitudinal rater training intervention consisted of in-person training followed by asynchronous online spaced learning. In 2018, investigators randomized 94 internal medicine and family medicine physicians involved with resident education. Participants assessed 10 scripted standardized resident-patient videos at baseline and follow-up. Differences in holistic assessment of narrative comment accuracy and specificity, accuracy of individual scenario observations, and entrustment rating accuracy were evaluated with t tests. Linear regression assessed impact of participant demographics and baseline performance.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven participants completed the study. At follow-up, the intervention group (n = 41), compared with the control group (n = 36), had higher scores for narrative holistic specificity (2.76 vs 2.31, P < .001, Cohen V = .25), accuracy (2.37 vs 2.06, P < .001, Cohen V = .20) and mean quantity of accurate (6.14 vs 4.33, P < .001), inaccurate (3.53 vs 2.41, P < .001), and overall observations (2.61 vs 1.92, P = .002, Cohen V = .47). In aggregate, the intervention group had more accurate entrustment ratings (58.1% vs 49.7%, P = .006, Phi = .30). Baseline performance was significantly associated with performance on final assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality and specificity of narrative comments improved with rater training; the effect was mitigated by inappropriate stringency. Training improved accuracy of prospective entrustment-supervision ratings, but the effect was more limited. Participants with lower baseline rating skill may benefit most from training.

摘要

目的

先前评估基于工作场所的评估(WBA)评估者培训效果的研究并未衡量叙述性评论质量和准确性的提高,也未衡量前瞻性委托-监督评分的准确性。本研究的目的是确定使用绩效维度和参考框架培训是否可以提高 WBA 叙述性评论的质量和准确性。次要目的是评估对委托评分准确性的影响。

方法

这是一项单盲、多机构、随机对照试验,采用多方面、纵向的评估者培训干预措施,包括面对面培训和异步在线间隔学习。2018 年,研究人员对参与住院医师教育的 94 名内科和家庭医学医师进行了随机分组。参与者在基线和随访时评估了 10 个脚本标准化住院医师-患者视频。使用 t 检验评估整体评估叙述性评论准确性和特异性、个别情景观察准确性以及委托评分准确性的差异。线性回归评估参与者人口统计学特征和基线表现的影响。

结果

77 名参与者完成了研究。在随访时,干预组(n=41)与对照组(n=36)相比,叙述性整体特异性评分更高(2.76 对 2.31,P<.001,Cohen V=0.25),准确性评分更高(2.37 对 2.06,P<.001,Cohen V=0.20),准确观察的平均值更高(6.14 对 4.33,P<.001),不准确观察的平均值更高(3.53 对 2.41,P<.001),以及整体观察的平均值更高(2.61 对 1.92,P=.002,Cohen V=0.47)。总体而言,干预组的委托评分更准确(58.1% 对 49.7%,P=.006,Phi=0.30)。基线表现与最终评估表现显著相关。

结论

评估者培训提高了叙述性评论的质量和特异性;但不当的严格性降低了效果。培训提高了前瞻性委托-监督评分的准确性,但效果更为有限。基线评分技能较低的参与者可能从培训中获益最多。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验