Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_2823_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
to the teacher); that are reliable and reproducible (i.e., the
evaluation framework is applied consistently and not
capriciously across observations by teachers; and in which
formative evaluations can be relied upon by learners as
anticipations of summative grading.
11
Faculty development
in general is a quality improvement process in training
teachers how to use evaluation forms and scales, and
specifically is intended to minimize unacceptable
variation
12
,13
between observers in which ratings would
depend more upon teacher characteristics or teacher
preferences than upon attributes of the trainee. It is
important to understand that the teacher completing the
rating scale is the actual assessment “instrument” and that
the form provides a way to communicate and foster shared
expectations and document performance.
Evaluation forms are in themselves, implicitly or explicitly,
frameworks to guide teachers’ observations and
documentation of a learner’s performance. Therefore they
usually include an explicit statement of goals for the learners,
or at least the criteria by which learners are to be judged. As
an official and legal document of a program or institution,
these forms publicly express curricular goals and are
intended to avoid variance that is arbitrary due to having
inconsistent goals and standards across teachers. However,
they are not guarantees that teachers will not be capricious
(inconsistent or idiosyncratic) in applying them to individual
learners.
14
Indeed, the rating scale must make sense to the
rater and foster construct alignment between the rater and
institutional expectations.
We will begin this chapter by discussing the importance of
https://t.me/med1917
evaluation frameworks to guide the user in their effective
use. Next, we provide an outline of the advantages and
disadvantages of rating scales and evaluation forms,
including some important psychometric rating error issues
that limit the effectiveness of evaluation forms. The chapter
will close with practical suggestions on how to prepare
faculty to use evaluation forms more effectively.
Evaluation Forms and Frameworks
In any evaluation form used in evaluating a trainee, there is
an underlying set of assumptions about what we expect of
the trainee (what are the educational goals?); and about the
tasks that a trainee must complete successfully to
demonstrate that the goals have been achieved (curricular
objectives). This set of assumptions can be considered the
underlying framework that encompasses (“frames”) what
the observer must compare the trainee to in order to decide
whether the trainee is progressing. This side-to-side
comparison between what the teacher does observe in this
learner as distinct from what the teacher expects to see
provides the “is-versus-ought” or “real-versus-ideal” that is
the basis of most judgments that lead to assigning labels (i.e.,
codes) or classifications (e.g., rating scales). Program
directors should not see this as a passive process in which
meaningful observations will successfully flow into the
teacher’s mind, to be subsequently placed into the desired
framework or construct. It should be seen as an active
process in which the teacher seeks observations to satisfy the
expectations of the evidence-based mental model that the
framework embodies.
https://t.me/med1917
Just as in diagnosis of clinical syndromes, it is critical that the
observer has an accurate and valid mental model against
which to compare the trainee. Educational frameworks are
ways to conceptualize expectations for the comparisons that
underlie evaluations of trainees’ success. Teachers commonly
divide educational goals into the three familiar categories of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes. We will describe this as well
as other useful frameworks in the next section.
Analytic Frameworks
In the traditional framework used in education, including in
elementary and secondary school, there are typically three
domains: knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA). It is
straightforward to place learning objectives for learners,
especially in preclinical rotations, into the three KSA
domains: for instance, knowledge of the structures within the
chest cavity, skill in the physical examination of heart and
lungs, and a proper attitude of respect for the patient’s
physical comfort and privacy.
The analytic approach to formulating educational goals
provides a generic set of terms that can be applied to any
curricular task in any field of education. The analytic
approach is particularly useful when trying to measure
discrete aspects of performance, and of course program
directors are quite familiar with using a single multiplechoice test as a measure of knowledge and perhaps with
using a checklist to rate skill in examining a patient’s knee or
in giving informed consent. By isolating one particular
aspect of performance—for instance, the ability to interview
https://t.me/med1917
the patient about an alcohol history or the ability to place a
central venous catheter—the analytic method allows us to
create a fairly detailed set of performance tasks that can be
compiled into a checklist, which in turn can be placed on a
rating form. Such a checklist can be as detailed as necessary
to help the teacher document whether each aspect of a
particular task can be performed separately, prior to the
teacher combining them into a single (global) rating.
Together, the checklist and overall global rating constitute
the criterion description of what ultimate proficiency or
competency looks like for this task. The analytic method
requires an evaluation form to have at least three scales, with
labels at the top of each gradation to distinguish levels of
success (Fig. 4.2A
). The scale is an example of using “quality
of performance” as the ratings, and these scales continue to
be used despite growing evidence that they suffer from a
lack of construct alignment (discussed later in the chapter)
and require a substantial amount of translation by the rater.
9
In the example given, the labels are rudimentary and require
the user to infer what the terms mean. For the critical, central
label of “Acceptable,” the form might provide more concrete
terms for or examples of what is meant through use of
behaviorally anchored scales, which we discuss in more
detail later in this chapter.
https://t.me/med1917
Fig. 4.1 Placing evaluation forms into a comprehensive
system. MCQs, multiple-choice questions; SPs,
standardized patient examinations.
Fig. 4.2a Rating scale in knowledge-skills-attitude
framework with rudimentary anchors. Rating scale
using the Dreyfus developmental framework with
generic global terms. Rating scale using the
developmental framework from Bloom’s taxonomy in
the cognitive domain. “Distances” between
performance levels on any scale may not be equal, as
https://t.me/med1917
illustrated in RIME.
In addition the central anchor of “acceptability” is not made
explicit and defers the applicable criterion or criteria to the
rater. Multiple studies have shown that the primary frame of
reference (i.e., standard) used by faculty is self (see Chapter
5). Rating scales on evaluation forms have similarity with
items on surveys and questionnaires, asking for agreement
with an implicit statement that the learner being evaluated
meets, exceeds, or falls short of some criteria of acceptability.
There are pitfalls that program directors can avoid in
creating items for faculty to rate, such as not having anchors
for each level or using both words and numbers for each
level.
15
It is also worth noting that other scale anchor types are still
commonly used, and all suffer from the same issues noted
earlier. The traditional mini clinical evaluation exercise
(mini-CEX) uses a 9-point scale with the scale anchors of 1–3
(unsatisfactory), satisfactory,
4–6
and superior.
7–9
Others use
normative scaling (i.e., assessed against the expected
performance of others) with variable frames of reference for
the expectations (i.e., compared to peer learner, graduating
learner, or practicing physician). Such scales tend to range
from “fails to meet expectations” to “exceeds expectations.”
Finally, some evaluations using an analytic framework will
employ frequency scales (e.g., “rarely” to “almost always”),
assuming a greater frequency of a behavior indicates higher
levels of competence. While all of these types of analytic
scales may have utility in specific circumstances, we do not
recommend the routine use of these scales. Instead, we
strongly recommend educators choose scales for their
https://t.me/med1917
evaluation forms based on developmental frameworks.
Developmental Frameworks
The growth of human beings has often been used as a
metaphor for the growth of trainees in an educational
process. The pedigree of this approach is ancient, and Plato
describes the growth of the individual from a preoccupation
with surface, concrete details toward a perception of the true
meaning and form underlying them. In the well-known
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in the Cognitive Domain,
Bloom
16,17
provides a vocabulary for describing the
progressively higher mental skills acquired by students in
primary education: knowledge, comprehension, application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation The developmental
model of Dreyfus and Dreyfus,18 revised for GME,19 provides
a generic vocabulary of educational progress for adult
learners from novice to advanced beginner, competent
performance, proficient performance, intuitive expert, and
master. Developmental considerations are essential for
medical school faculty because they reflect the facts that
students grow, that not all learners are at the same level of
performance, and that in the clinical setting there are often
learners at several levels of training. The models of Bloom
and Dreyfus typically focus on cognitive aspects of
development, and personal and attitudinal characteristics are
not always evident. Bloom, and to some extent Dreyfus,
choose to treat the attitudinal (“affective”) domain separately
from the cognitive. However, one advantage of
developmental over analytic models is that the recognition of
growth and progress is explicit and does not have to be
https://t.me/med1917
inferred by the teacher or the student. To this extent, any
curriculum that has learners at different stages, like medical
school, requires some explicitly developmental aspect. Using
the Dreyfus model as an ordinal rating scale—similar to a
Likert scale—could be constructed with the word Novice on
the left and the word Master at the extreme right (see Fig.
4.2B).
The Dreyfus terms used as “anchors” on the linear scale
shown in Fig. 4.2 are global (i.e., generic and nonspecific),
and a more detailed, developmental scale could be devised
for a specific domain within the analytic framework.
This can be made less vague, although still abstract, using
Bloom’s taxonomy for the growth of clinical reasoning. For
example, Fig. 4.2C demonstrates how you might judge a
resident’s presentation of a patient.
In this example, the criterion against which the resident is to
be rated is an idea or construct or what effective clinical
reasoning looks like, and the program director should use
the best available evidence of what effective clinical
reasoning should look like (i.e., accurate diagnoses and
treatment plans; see Chapter 7) as the expectation or
standard of comparison.
Given the ACGME/ABMS framework of six competencies, in
each of which a finishing resident is judged to be successful
(or not), such static or pass/fail dichotomous ratings of
competence must be modified for those earlier in their
training. The faculty or program director must determine
what is the standard to be met within the criterion for each
https://t.me/med1917
level, and the program director must reframe each specific
ACGME competency into a developmental model that can
describe what the acceptable/passing standard of
performance is for student, intern, resident, or fellow. To
help in this process, more structured ways to describe and
document progress have recently been introduced:
Milestones and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs).
20
Milestones,
21,22
as described in Chapter 1, are observable
behaviors or tasks that combine or synthesize knowledge, skill,
and attitudes and therefore may be seen as synthetic to better
define a competency in narrative terms. Using the concept of
stages of development, the Milestones provide an explicit
developmental scale for a resident’s professional
development across the competencies. The Royal College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) has also
created Milestones for its competency-based medical
education (CBME) initiatives.23 These and EPAs are
described in the next section. This combination of different
domains into a single observation means Milestones are a
synthetic approach.
24
GME programs are now required to report residents’
progress in a range of subcompetencies described in
narrative Milestone levels (typically 20 to 25
subcompetencies per specialty), which represent progressive
steps toward achieving mastery performance within an
ACGME competency domain.21 Milestones can allow faculty
observers to focus on the task rather than the framework.
22
Milestones, although organized as a set of subcompetency
domains, can be considered synthetic in that a number of the
subcompetency domains, such as the subcompetency
https://t.me/med1917
“System Navigation for Patient Care,” do require the
integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Ultimately,
however, a synthesis of all assessment information must be
performed to answer the most important question of
whether a learner is or is not ready for the next stage of their
career, also satisfying the legal precept of looking at the
10
A Synthetic Model
As students and residents progress toward independence,
we expect that they themselves will spontaneously bring
whatever skills, knowledge, and attitudes are necessary to
help a patient each day; the learner is responsible for
deciding (either consciously or not) what the patient needs.
This leads to a “synthetic” definition of competence as “the
ability to bring to each patient seen in one’s practice
everything that that patient needs, and nothing else.”25 In
other words, competence at the point of unsupervised (aka
independent) practice requires that the resident decides what
the task is, right at this moment, and summons up whatever
skill, knowledge, or attitude is needed.16 In rating
performance, we might comment separately on a resident’s
fund of knowledge or “attitude,” but in the end we have to
judge whether residents have been able to master all the
necessary attributes and—on their own—combine them
successfully. A synthetic framework “puts things together”
in a vocabulary that emphasizes progressively higher
expectations as a student progresses through the clinical
years and through residency. The underlying premise is that
https://t.me/med1917
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана