Initial evaluation of the first year of the Foundation Assessment Programme
Initial evaluation of the first year of the Foundation Assessment Programme
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03249.x
复制
发表时间：
2009-01-01
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Norcini, John
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Davies, Helena;Archer, Julian;Norcini, John
本研究是根据研究生医学教育及培训委员会（PMETB）的评估原则，对基础评估计划（FAP）第一年（F1）进行的初步评估。每种方法的平均得分和标准差。使用概化系数估计可靠性。Pearson相关性用于探索仪器之间的关系。研究样本包括来自10个英语系主任的3640名F1学员，共有2929名学员提交了所有四种方法中的至少一种。平均每名F1学员提交16.6份以病例为重点的评估。基于每名学员返回6个以病例为中心的评估，以及8名评估员的多源反馈，95%置信区间（CI）在0.4和0.48之间。这方面所需的时间估计为每名受训人员每年9小时。随着时间的推移，所有工具和方法之间的相关性的分数增加，符合其预期的重点评估，提供证据的validity.The FAP是可行的，并达到可接受的可靠性。有一些证据支持它的有效性。经过整理的评估数据应构成甄选和职业进展决定所考虑的证据的一部分，尽管还需要进一步制定FAP。在任何情况下，这对专业人员向公众负责是至关重要的。
This study represents an initial evaluation of the first year (F1) of the Foundation Assessment Programme (FAP), in line with Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB) assessment principles.Descriptive analyses were undertaken for total number of encounters, assessors and trainees, mean number of assessments per trainee, mean number of assessments per assessor, time taken for the assessments, mean score and standard deviation for each method. Reliability was estimated using generalisability coefficients. Pearson correlations were used to explore relationships between instruments. The study sample included 3640 F1 trainees from 10 English deaneries.A total of 2929 trainees submitted at least one of all four methods. A mean of 16.6 case-focused assessments were submitted per F1 trainee. Based on a return per trainee of six of each of the case-focused assessments, and eight assessors for multi-source feedback, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) ranged between 0.4 and 0.48. The estimated time required for this is 9 hours per trainee per year. Scores increased over time for all instruments and correlations between methods were in keeping with their intended focus of assessment, providing evidence of validity.The FAP is feasible and achieves acceptable reliability. There is some evidence to support its validity. Collated assessment data should form part of the evidence considered for selection and career progression decisions although work is needed to further develop the FAP. It is in any case of critical importance for the profession's accountability to the public.