ANZCA and FPM CPD Program resources: WBA of trainees

Abstract in English, French
Purpose: Competency-based anesthesia training programs require robust assessment of trainee performance and commonly combine different types of workplace-based assessment (WBA) covering multiple facets of practice. This study measured the reliability of WBAs in a large existing database and explored how they could be combined to optimize reliability for assessment decisions.

Methods: We used generalizability theory to measure the composite reliability of four different types of WBAs used by the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists: mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX), direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS), case-based discussion (CbD), and multi-source feedback (MSF). We then modified the number and weighting of WBA combinations to optimize reliability with fewer assessments.

Results: We analyzed 67,405 assessments from 1,837 trainees and 4,145 assessors. We assumed acceptable reliability for interim (intermediate stakes) and final (high stakes) decisions of 0.7 and 0.8, respectively. Depending on the combination of WBA types, 12 assessments allowed the 0.7 threshold to be reached where one assessment of any type has the same weighting, while 20 were required for reliability to reach 0.8. If the weighting of the assessments is optimized, acceptable reliability for interim and final decisions is possible with nine (e.g., two DOPS, three CbD, two mini-CEX, two MSF) and 15 (e.g., two DOPS, eight CbD, three mini-CEX, two MSF) assessments respectively.

Conclusions: Reliability is an important factor to consider when designing assessments, and measuring composite reliability can allow the selection of a WBA portfolio with adequate reliability to provide evidence for defensible decisions on trainee progression.

Abstract
Purpose: At present, little is known about how mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) raters translate their observations into judgments and ratings. The authors of this systematic literature review aim both to identify the factors influencing mini-CEX rater judgments in the medical education setting and to translate these findings into practical implications for clinician assessors.

Method: The authors searched for internal and external factors influencing mini-CEX rater judgments in the medical education setting from 1980 to 2015 using the Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC, PubMed, and Scopus databases. They extracted the following information from each study: country of origin, educational level, study design and setting, type of observation, occurrence of rater training, provision of feedback to the trainee, research question, and identified factors influencing rater judgments. The authors also conducted a quality assessment for each study.

Results: Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria. The authors identified both internal and external factors that influence mini-CEX rater judgments. They subcategorized the internal factors into intrinsic rater factors, judgment-making factors (conceptualization, interpretation, attention, and impressions), and scoring factors (scoring integration and domain differentiation).

Conclusions: The current theories of rater-based judgment have not helped clinicians resolve the issues of rater idiosyncrasy, bias, gestalt, and conflicting contextual factors; therefore, the authors believe the most important solution is to increase the justification of rater judgments through the use of specific narrative and contextual comments, which are more informative for trainees. Finally, more real-world research is required to bridge the gap between the theory and practice of rater cognition.

Abstract
Background: The Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) is a workplace-based assessment tool of potential value in anaesthesia to assess and improve clinical performance. Its reliability and positive educational impact have been reported in other specialities, but not, to date, in anaesthesia. In this study, we evaluated the psychometric characteristics, logistics of application, and impact on the quality of supervision of the Mini-CEX in anaesthesia training.

Methods: A Mini-CEX encounter consisted of a single specialist anaesthetist observing a trainee over a defined period of time, completing an online Mini-CEX form with the trainee, and providing written and verbal feedback. We sought trainee and supervisor perspectives on its value and ease of use and used Generalizability Theory to estimate reliability.

Results: We collected 331 assessments from 61 trainees and 58 assessors. Survey responses strongly supported the positive effect of the Mini-CEX on feedback, its relative feasibility, and acceptance as a potential assessment tool. In this cohort, we found variable assessor stringency and low trainee variation. However, a feasible sample of cases and assessors would produce sufficiently precise scores to decide that performance was satisfactory for each trainee with 95% confidence. To generate scores that could discriminate sufficiently between trainees to allow ranking, a much larger sample of cases would be needed.

Conclusions: The Mini-CEX in anaesthesia has strengths and weaknesses. Strengths include: its perceived very positive educational impact and its relative feasibility. Variable assessor stringency means that large numbers of assessors are required to produce reliable scores.