Raising the Bar: Reassessing Standards for Procedural Competence

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: How often passing standards for clinical skills examinations should be reexamined is unknown. Purpose: The goal is to determine if improved resident performance affects the passing standard imposed by expert judges. Method: In 2006, we set a passing standard for a central venous catheter insertion clinical skills examination using an expert panel. From 2007 to 2010, trainee scores improved steadily. In 2010, a new expert panel provided judgments for the examination using 4 consecutive years of resident performance data. Interrater reliabilities and test-retest reliability (stability) were calculated. Passing standards from 2006 and 2010 were compared. Results: Judgments provided were reliable and stable. The new passing standard was 88% for internal jugular and 87% for subclavian central venous catheter insertion compared to 79% for both sites in 2006. Conclusions: Cumulative performance data influenced experts to set a more stringent minimum passing standard. Standards should be regularly reviewed to ensure they are fair and appropriately rigorous.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)6-9
Number of pages4
JournalTeaching and Learning in Medicine
Volume25
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2013

Fingerprint

Mental Competency
expert
Clinical Competence
Central Venous Catheters
examination
resident
performance
Reproducibility of Results
trainee
Neck

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

@article{6274496e16e84e1b906e58987b8e01be,
title = "Raising the Bar: Reassessing Standards for Procedural Competence",
abstract = "Background: How often passing standards for clinical skills examinations should be reexamined is unknown. Purpose: The goal is to determine if improved resident performance affects the passing standard imposed by expert judges. Method: In 2006, we set a passing standard for a central venous catheter insertion clinical skills examination using an expert panel. From 2007 to 2010, trainee scores improved steadily. In 2010, a new expert panel provided judgments for the examination using 4 consecutive years of resident performance data. Interrater reliabilities and test-retest reliability (stability) were calculated. Passing standards from 2006 and 2010 were compared. Results: Judgments provided were reliable and stable. The new passing standard was 88{\%} for internal jugular and 87{\%} for subclavian central venous catheter insertion compared to 79{\%} for both sites in 2006. Conclusions: Cumulative performance data influenced experts to set a more stringent minimum passing standard. Standards should be regularly reviewed to ensure they are fair and appropriately rigorous.",
author = "Cohen, {Elaine R.} and Barsuk, {Jeffrey H.} and McGaghie, {William C.} and Wayne, {Diane B.}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/10401334.2012.741540",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "6--9",
journal = "Teaching and Learning in Medicine",
issn = "1040-1334",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

Raising the Bar : Reassessing Standards for Procedural Competence. / Cohen, Elaine R.; Barsuk, Jeffrey H.; McGaghie, William C.; Wayne, Diane B.

In: Teaching and Learning in Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 1, 01.01.2013, p. 6-9.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Raising the Bar

T2 - Reassessing Standards for Procedural Competence

AU - Cohen, Elaine R.

AU - Barsuk, Jeffrey H.

AU - McGaghie, William C.

AU - Wayne, Diane B.

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - Background: How often passing standards for clinical skills examinations should be reexamined is unknown. Purpose: The goal is to determine if improved resident performance affects the passing standard imposed by expert judges. Method: In 2006, we set a passing standard for a central venous catheter insertion clinical skills examination using an expert panel. From 2007 to 2010, trainee scores improved steadily. In 2010, a new expert panel provided judgments for the examination using 4 consecutive years of resident performance data. Interrater reliabilities and test-retest reliability (stability) were calculated. Passing standards from 2006 and 2010 were compared. Results: Judgments provided were reliable and stable. The new passing standard was 88% for internal jugular and 87% for subclavian central venous catheter insertion compared to 79% for both sites in 2006. Conclusions: Cumulative performance data influenced experts to set a more stringent minimum passing standard. Standards should be regularly reviewed to ensure they are fair and appropriately rigorous.

AB - Background: How often passing standards for clinical skills examinations should be reexamined is unknown. Purpose: The goal is to determine if improved resident performance affects the passing standard imposed by expert judges. Method: In 2006, we set a passing standard for a central venous catheter insertion clinical skills examination using an expert panel. From 2007 to 2010, trainee scores improved steadily. In 2010, a new expert panel provided judgments for the examination using 4 consecutive years of resident performance data. Interrater reliabilities and test-retest reliability (stability) were calculated. Passing standards from 2006 and 2010 were compared. Results: Judgments provided were reliable and stable. The new passing standard was 88% for internal jugular and 87% for subclavian central venous catheter insertion compared to 79% for both sites in 2006. Conclusions: Cumulative performance data influenced experts to set a more stringent minimum passing standard. Standards should be regularly reviewed to ensure they are fair and appropriately rigorous.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876116029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84876116029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10401334.2012.741540

DO - 10.1080/10401334.2012.741540

M3 - Article

C2 - 23330888

AN - SCOPUS:84876116029

VL - 25

SP - 6

EP - 9

JO - Teaching and Learning in Medicine

JF - Teaching and Learning in Medicine

SN - 1040-1334

IS - 1

ER -