基于评核员类型和评核员与学生接触频率的见习评核信度:概化理论分析。

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Christopher D Mattson, Celia L O'Brien, Yoon Soo Park, Sandra M Sanguino, Mary E McBride, Brigid M Dolan
{"title":"基于评核员类型和评核员与学生接触频率的见习评核信度:概化理论分析。","authors":"Christopher D Mattson, Celia L O'Brien, Yoon Soo Park, Sandra M Sanguino, Mary E McBride, Brigid M Dolan","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Workplace-based assessments (WBAs), such as clinical performance assessments (CPAs), often comprise a significant portion of clerkship assessment systems. This study explores the reliability of CPAs in clerkships based on assessor characteristics, including assessor type and assessor-student contact frequency.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The CPAs of third-year medical students at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine completed during 5 clerkships in academic year 2021 to 2022 were compiled. Analyses compared clerkship assessments per student and breakdown of assessor characteristics by clerkship. Generalizability analysis divided assessments by clerkship, assessor type (resident vs attending), and assessor-student contact frequency (daily vs not daily). Decision studies examined the number of assessments needed per student to achieve reliability of 0.7 (D0.7).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4,062 CPAs completed by 734 assessors on 179 students were analyzed. The number of attending versus resident assessors and daily versus not daily assessors varied by clerkship. Assessments completed by residents were more reliable than assessments completed by attendings (resident φ coefficient = 0.62; student variance, 8.5%; D0.7 = 19; attending φ coefficient = 0.48; student variance, 5.6%; D0.7 = 34). Assessments completed by assessors with daily contact were more reliable than assessments completed by assessors with not daily contact (daily contact φ coefficient of = 0.63; student variance, 7.6%; D0.7 = 22; not daily contact φ coefficient = 0.31; student variance, 5.7%; D0.7 = 34). Residents with daily contact were most reliable (φ coefficient = 0.38, D0.7 = 16).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Differences in assessor type and assessor-student contact frequency may explain between-clerkship differences in assessment reliability. These findings provide an opportunity to consider assessor characteristics in the design of assessment systems, thus improving assessment reliability and working toward systems that can be trusted by all stakeholders.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clerkship Assessment Reliability Based on Assessor Type and Assessor-Student Contact Frequency: A Generalizability Theory Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher D Mattson, Celia L O'Brien, Yoon Soo Park, Sandra M Sanguino, Mary E McBride, Brigid M Dolan\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Workplace-based assessments (WBAs), such as clinical performance assessments (CPAs), often comprise a significant portion of clerkship assessment systems. This study explores the reliability of CPAs in clerkships based on assessor characteristics, including assessor type and assessor-student contact frequency.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The CPAs of third-year medical students at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine completed during 5 clerkships in academic year 2021 to 2022 were compiled. Analyses compared clerkship assessments per student and breakdown of assessor characteristics by clerkship. Generalizability analysis divided assessments by clerkship, assessor type (resident vs attending), and assessor-student contact frequency (daily vs not daily). Decision studies examined the number of assessments needed per student to achieve reliability of 0.7 (D0.7).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4,062 CPAs completed by 734 assessors on 179 students were analyzed. The number of attending versus resident assessors and daily versus not daily assessors varied by clerkship. Assessments completed by residents were more reliable than assessments completed by attendings (resident φ coefficient = 0.62; student variance, 8.5%; D0.7 = 19; attending φ coefficient = 0.48; student variance, 5.6%; D0.7 = 34). Assessments completed by assessors with daily contact were more reliable than assessments completed by assessors with not daily contact (daily contact φ coefficient of = 0.63; student variance, 7.6%; D0.7 = 22; not daily contact φ coefficient = 0.31; student variance, 5.7%; D0.7 = 34). Residents with daily contact were most reliable (φ coefficient = 0.38, D0.7 = 16).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Differences in assessor type and assessor-student contact frequency may explain between-clerkship differences in assessment reliability. These findings provide an opportunity to consider assessor characteristics in the design of assessment systems, thus improving assessment reliability and working toward systems that can be trusted by all stakeholders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006143\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006143","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:以工作场所为基础的评估(wba),如临床绩效评估(cpa),通常构成了职员评估系统的重要部分。本研究以评核员类型、评核员与学生接触频率为基础,探讨注册会计师在见习工作中的信度。方法:对美国西北大学范伯格医学院医三年级学生在2021 ~ 2022学年5次实习期间完成的注册会计师进行统计。分析比较了每个学生的见习评估和按见习分类的见习评估者特征。概率性分析将评估按职员、评估员类型(住院与出席)以及评估员与学生的联系频率(每日与非每日)进行划分。决策研究检查了每个学生达到0.7的可靠性所需的评估次数(D0.7)。结果:共对179名学生734名评核员填写的4062份注册会计师资料进行分析。出席评估员与常驻评估员、每日评估员与非每日评估员的人数因职员而异。住院医师完成的评价比主治医师完成的评价更可靠(住院医师φ系数= 0.62;学生方差为8.5%;D0.7 = 19;出席φ系数= 0.48;学生方差为5.6%;D0.7 = 34)。有日常接触的评估员完成的评估比没有日常接触的评估员完成的评估更可靠(日常接触φ系数= 0.63;学生方差为7.6%;D0.7 = 22;非日常接触φ系数= 0.31;学生方差为5.7%;D0.7 = 34)。日常接触者最可靠(φ系数= 0.38,D0.7 = 16)。结论:评核员类型和评核员与学生接触频率的差异可以解释评核信度的不同。这些发现为在评估系统的设计中考虑评估者的特征提供了机会,从而提高评估的可靠性,并朝着所有利益相关者都可以信任的系统努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clerkship Assessment Reliability Based on Assessor Type and Assessor-Student Contact Frequency: A Generalizability Theory Analysis.

Purpose: Workplace-based assessments (WBAs), such as clinical performance assessments (CPAs), often comprise a significant portion of clerkship assessment systems. This study explores the reliability of CPAs in clerkships based on assessor characteristics, including assessor type and assessor-student contact frequency.

Method: The CPAs of third-year medical students at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine completed during 5 clerkships in academic year 2021 to 2022 were compiled. Analyses compared clerkship assessments per student and breakdown of assessor characteristics by clerkship. Generalizability analysis divided assessments by clerkship, assessor type (resident vs attending), and assessor-student contact frequency (daily vs not daily). Decision studies examined the number of assessments needed per student to achieve reliability of 0.7 (D0.7).

Results: A total of 4,062 CPAs completed by 734 assessors on 179 students were analyzed. The number of attending versus resident assessors and daily versus not daily assessors varied by clerkship. Assessments completed by residents were more reliable than assessments completed by attendings (resident φ coefficient = 0.62; student variance, 8.5%; D0.7 = 19; attending φ coefficient = 0.48; student variance, 5.6%; D0.7 = 34). Assessments completed by assessors with daily contact were more reliable than assessments completed by assessors with not daily contact (daily contact φ coefficient of = 0.63; student variance, 7.6%; D0.7 = 22; not daily contact φ coefficient = 0.31; student variance, 5.7%; D0.7 = 34). Residents with daily contact were most reliable (φ coefficient = 0.38, D0.7 = 16).

Conclusions: Differences in assessor type and assessor-student contact frequency may explain between-clerkship differences in assessment reliability. These findings provide an opportunity to consider assessor characteristics in the design of assessment systems, thus improving assessment reliability and working toward systems that can be trusted by all stakeholders.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信