Some assembly required: tracing the interpretative work of Clinical Competency Committees.

Objectives: This qualitative study describes the social processes of evidence interpretation employed by Clinical Competency Committees (CCCs), explicating how they interpret, grapple with and weigh assessment data. Methods: Over 8 months, two researchers observed 10 CCC meetings across four postgra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Medical Education Vol. 53; no. 7; pp. 723 - 735
Autores principales: Pack, Rachael, Lingard, Lorelei, Watling, Christopher J, Chahine, Saad, Cristancho, Sayra M
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Jul2019
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=136998381&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 136998381
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        03080110
        ESF
      jtl: Medical Education
      issn: 03080110
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2019
      vid: 53
      iid: 7
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        136998381
        136998381
        136998381
        10.1111/medu.13884
        136998381
      ppf: 723
      ppct: 12
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: C
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Some assembly required: tracing the interpretative work of Clinical Competency Committees.
      aug:
        au:
          Pack, Rachael
          Lingard, Lorelei
          Watling, Christopher J
          Chahine, Saad
          Cristancho, Sayra M
        affil: Centre for Education Research & Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London Ontario, Canada
      sug:
        subj:
          Education, Medical
          Clinical Competence
          Committees
          Educational Measurement
          Human
          Qualitative Studies
          Meetings
          Schools, Medical
          Education, Graduate
          Canada
          Semi-Structured Interview
          Grounded Theory
          Quality Assessment
          Decision Making, Clinical
          Psychometrics
          Judgment
          Membership
      ab: Objectives: This qualitative study describes the social processes of evidence interpretation employed by Clinical Competency Committees (CCCs), explicating how they interpret, grapple with and weigh assessment data. Methods: Over 8 months, two researchers observed 10 CCC meetings across four postgraduate programmes at a Canadian medical school, spanning over 25 hours and 100 individual decisions. After each CCC meeting, a semi‐structured interview was conducted with one member. Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, data collection and inductive analysis were conducted iteratively. Results: Members of the CCCs held an assumption that they would be presented with high‐quality assessment data that would enable them to make systematic and transparent decisions. This assumption was frequently challenged by the discovery of what we have termed 'problematic evidence' (evidence that CCC members struggled to meaningful interpret) within the catalogue of learner data. When CCCs were confronted with 'problematic evidence', they engaged in lengthy, effortful discussions aided by contextual data in order to make meaning of the evidence in question. This process of effortful discussion enabled CCCs to arrive at progression decisions that were informed by, rather than ignored, problematic evidence. Conclusions: Small groups involved in the review of trainee assessment data should be prepared to encounter evidence that is uncertain, absent, incomplete, or otherwise difficult to interpret, and should openly discuss strategies for addressing these challenges. The answer to the problem of effortful processes of data interpretation and problematic evidence is not as simple as generating more data with strong psychometric properties. Rather, it involves grappling with the discrepancies between our interpretive frameworks and the inescapably subjective nature of assessment data and judgement. The authors of this qualitative study illustrate the processes of evidence interpretation Clinical Competency Committees (CCCs) use to grapple with and weigh assessment data.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N