ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2021
Composite Reliability of Workplace Based Assessment of International Medical Graduates.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging Narrative Feedback in Programmatic Assessment: The Potential of Automated Text Analysis to Support Coaching and Decision-Making in Programmatic Assessment.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Introduction All developed countries depend on International Medical Graduates (IMGs) to complement their workforce. However, the assessment of their fitness to practice and acculturation into the new system can be challenging. To improve this, we introduced Workplace Based Assessment (WBA), using a programmatic philosophy. This paper reports the reliability of this new approach. Method Over the past 10 years, we have assessed over 250 IMGs, each cohort assessed over a 6-month period. We used Mini-Cex, Case Based Discussions (CBD) and Multi-Source Feedback (MSF) to assess them. We analysed the reliability of each tool and the composite reliability of 12 Mini-Cex, 5 CBDs and 12 MSF assessments in the tool kit. Results A reliability coefficient of 0.78 with a SEM of 0.19 was obtained for the sample of 236 IMGs. We found the MSF to be the most reliable tool. By adding one more MSF to the assessment on two occasions, we can reach a reliability of 0.8 and SEM of 0.18. Conclusions The current assessment methodology has acceptable reliability. By increasing the MSF, we can improve the reliability. The lessons from this study are generalisable to IMG assessment and other medical education programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.