儿科伦理与专业评估工具(pepi - epat):开发和实施一种新颖的、基于能力的评估

Omri-David Soffer , Lori R. Newman , Mary Brennan , David N. Williams , Christy L. Cummings
{"title":"儿科伦理与专业评估工具(pepi - epat):开发和实施一种新颖的、基于能力的评估","authors":"Omri-David Soffer ,&nbsp;Lori R. Newman ,&nbsp;Mary Brennan ,&nbsp;David N. Williams ,&nbsp;Christy L. Cummings","doi":"10.1016/j.pecinn.2025.100433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To develop and demonstrate validation of a competency-based formative assessment tool, the Pediatric Ethics &amp; Professionalism Assessment Tool (Pedi-EPAT).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Using a multi-phased study design, a panel of national experts in pediatrics, ethics, and medical education participated in tool development and established content validity using a Delphi approach. To optimize rating accuracy and minimize inter-rater variation, the panel completed frame-of-reference training, consisting of inter-rater comparisons of 3 recorded, simulated scenarios involving parent-actors and pediatric trainees. Outcomes included degree-of-association of raters' ordinal assessments, agreement of ratings between experts and raters, and median ratings per simulated scenario. Kendall's coefficient was used to estimate consistency across raters, and a structural equation-modeling framework assessed internal reliability</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>11 experts participated in the 2-round Delphi. The final Pedi-EPAT achieved consensus and contained 34 items, including 2 items independent of the Delphi. During FOR training, consistency among the 6 raters by Kendall's coefficient was low-moderate (w = 0.33–0.35, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). The tool demonstrated excellent internal reliability (composite reliability = 0.97)</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This novel, competency-based, formative assessment tool demonstrated content validity and internal reliability.</div></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><div>The Pedi-EPAT could aid supervising staff in providing high-quality assessments and feedback on ethical behavior and professionalism for pediatric trainees engaging in conversations with families.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74407,"journal":{"name":"PEC innovation","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100433"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Pediatric Ethics & Professionalism Assessment Tool (Pedi-EPAT): Development and implementation of a novel, competency-based assessment\",\"authors\":\"Omri-David Soffer ,&nbsp;Lori R. Newman ,&nbsp;Mary Brennan ,&nbsp;David N. Williams ,&nbsp;Christy L. Cummings\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pecinn.2025.100433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To develop and demonstrate validation of a competency-based formative assessment tool, the Pediatric Ethics &amp; Professionalism Assessment Tool (Pedi-EPAT).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Using a multi-phased study design, a panel of national experts in pediatrics, ethics, and medical education participated in tool development and established content validity using a Delphi approach. To optimize rating accuracy and minimize inter-rater variation, the panel completed frame-of-reference training, consisting of inter-rater comparisons of 3 recorded, simulated scenarios involving parent-actors and pediatric trainees. Outcomes included degree-of-association of raters' ordinal assessments, agreement of ratings between experts and raters, and median ratings per simulated scenario. Kendall's coefficient was used to estimate consistency across raters, and a structural equation-modeling framework assessed internal reliability</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>11 experts participated in the 2-round Delphi. The final Pedi-EPAT achieved consensus and contained 34 items, including 2 items independent of the Delphi. During FOR training, consistency among the 6 raters by Kendall's coefficient was low-moderate (w = 0.33–0.35, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). The tool demonstrated excellent internal reliability (composite reliability = 0.97)</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This novel, competency-based, formative assessment tool demonstrated content validity and internal reliability.</div></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><div>The Pedi-EPAT could aid supervising staff in providing high-quality assessments and feedback on ethical behavior and professionalism for pediatric trainees engaging in conversations with families.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PEC innovation\",\"volume\":\"7 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100433\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PEC innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628225000627\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEC innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628225000627","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的开发并验证一种基于能力的形成性评估工具——儿科伦理与专业评估工具(Pedi-EPAT)。方法采用多阶段研究设计,由全国儿科、伦理学和医学教育专家组成的小组参与工具开发,并采用德尔菲法建立内容效度。为了优化评分准确性,最大限度地减少评分者之间的差异,小组完成了参考框架训练,包括3个记录的、模拟的、涉及父母-演员和儿科学员的场景的评分者之间的比较。结果包括评分者顺序评估的关联度,专家和评分者之间的评分一致性,以及每个模拟场景的中位数评分。采用肯德尔系数估计各评分者的一致性,并采用结构方程建模框架评估内部信度。最终的Pedi-EPAT达成共识,共包含34个项目,其中2个项目与Delphi无关。在FOR训练中,6名评分者的肯德尔系数一致性为低-中等(w = 0.33-0.35, p < 0.05)。该工具具有良好的内部信度(复合信度= 0.97)。结论该工具具有良好的内容效度和内部信度。实践意义儿科临床评估可以帮助监督工作人员提供高质量的评估和反馈,以评价儿科实习生与家庭对话时的道德行为和专业精神。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Pediatric Ethics & Professionalism Assessment Tool (Pedi-EPAT): Development and implementation of a novel, competency-based assessment

Objective

To develop and demonstrate validation of a competency-based formative assessment tool, the Pediatric Ethics & Professionalism Assessment Tool (Pedi-EPAT).

Methods

Using a multi-phased study design, a panel of national experts in pediatrics, ethics, and medical education participated in tool development and established content validity using a Delphi approach. To optimize rating accuracy and minimize inter-rater variation, the panel completed frame-of-reference training, consisting of inter-rater comparisons of 3 recorded, simulated scenarios involving parent-actors and pediatric trainees. Outcomes included degree-of-association of raters' ordinal assessments, agreement of ratings between experts and raters, and median ratings per simulated scenario. Kendall's coefficient was used to estimate consistency across raters, and a structural equation-modeling framework assessed internal reliability

Results

11 experts participated in the 2-round Delphi. The final Pedi-EPAT achieved consensus and contained 34 items, including 2 items independent of the Delphi. During FOR training, consistency among the 6 raters by Kendall's coefficient was low-moderate (w = 0.33–0.35, p < 0.05). The tool demonstrated excellent internal reliability (composite reliability = 0.97)

Conclusion

This novel, competency-based, formative assessment tool demonstrated content validity and internal reliability.

Practice implications

The Pedi-EPAT could aid supervising staff in providing high-quality assessments and feedback on ethical behavior and professionalism for pediatric trainees engaging in conversations with families.
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
PEC innovation
PEC innovation Medicine and Dentistry (General)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
147 days
×
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