Fraser R C, McKinley R K, Mulholland H
University of Leicester.
Br J Gen Pract. 1994 Mar;44(380):109-13.
This study set out to test the face validity of prioritized criteria of consultation competence in general practice as contained in the Leicester assessment package.
A questionnaire was sent to a geographically stratified random sample of 100 members of the United Kingdom Association of Course Organisers to seek their views on the categories, components and weightings contained in the Leicester assessment package and to determine the proportion of respondents who rejected or suggested a new category, component or weighting or reallocated components to other categories or amended weightings. Their views were sought on a six-point scale (strongly approve, approve, tend to approve, tend to disapprove, disapprove and strongly disapprove).
There was a 73% response rate. Of the respondents 99% either strongly approved or approved of the overall set of categories of consultation competence. Only two respondents (3%) expressed any disapproval of individual categories. Thirty five of the 39 suggested components of consultation competence were supported by more than 80% of respondents. There was minimal support for excluding any categories or components of consultation competence, for moving any components to different categories or for the inclusion of new categories or components. Eighty eight per cent of respondents were in favour of the need to identify priorities between any agreed categories of consultation competence and 79% expressed approval of the suggested weightings. Although 42% of respondents indicated a wish for some alteration in weightings, the mean values for all consultation categories suggested by all respondents were almost identical to the original weightings in the Leicester package.
The face validity of the categories and components of consultation competence contained in the Leicester assessment package has been established, and the suggested weightings of consultation categories have been validated. Consequently, the criteria contained in the Leicester package can be adopted with confidence as measures against which performance can be judged in formative or summative assessment of consultation performance in general practice.
本研究旨在检验莱斯特评估工具包中所包含的全科医疗会诊能力优先标准的表面效度。
向英国课程组织者协会的100名成员发送了一份问卷，这些成员是按地理位置分层随机抽取的，以征求他们对莱斯特评估工具包中包含的类别、组成部分和权重的看法，并确定拒绝或建议新类别、组成部分或权重，或将组成部分重新分配到其他类别或修改权重的受访者比例。通过六点量表（强烈赞成、赞成、倾向于赞成、倾向于反对、反对和强烈反对）征求他们的意见。
回复率为73%。在受访者中，99%的人对会诊能力的总体类别表示强烈赞成或赞成。只有两名受访者（3%）对个别类别表示任何不赞成。会诊能力的39个建议组成部分中有35个得到了80%以上受访者的支持。对于排除会诊能力的任何类别或组成部分、将任何组成部分转移到不同类别或纳入新类别或组成部分，支持率极低。88%的受访者赞成需要在任何商定的会诊能力类别之间确定优先次序，79%的受访者对建议的权重表示赞成。虽然42%的受访者表示希望对权重进行一些调整，但所有受访者建议的所有会诊类别的平均值与莱斯特工具包中的原始权重几乎相同。
已确定莱斯特评估工具包中会诊能力类别和组成部分的表面效度，并验证了会诊类别的建议权重。因此，莱斯特工具包中包含的标准可以放心采用，作为在全科医疗会诊表现的形成性或总结性评估中判断表现的依据。
