The American College of Surgeons Entering Resident Readiness Assessment (ACS ERRA): Validity Evidence From a Three-Year National Study.

OBJECTIVE: To gather validity evidence supporting the use and interpretation of scores from the American College of Surgeons Entering Resident Readiness Assessment (ACS ERRA) Program. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: ACS ERRA is an online formative assessment program developed to assess entering surgery residents' ability to make critical clinical decisions, and includes 12 clinical areas and 20 topics identified by a national panel of surgeon educators and residency program directors. METHODS: Data from 3 national testing administrations of ACS ERRA (2018-2020) were used to gather validity evidence regarding content, response process, internal structure (reliability), relations to other variables, and consequences. RESULTS: Over the 3 administrations, 1975 surgery residents participated from 125 distinct residency programs. Overall scores [Mean = 64% (SD = 7%)] remained consistent across the 3 years ( P = 0.670). There were no significant differences among resident characteristics (gender, age, international medical graduate status). The mean case discrimination index was 0.54 [SD = 0.15]. Kappa inter-rater reliability for scoring was 0.87; the overall test score reliability (G-coefficient) was 0.86 (Ф-coefficient = 0.83). Residents who completed residency readiness programs had higher ACS ERRA scores (66% versus 63%, Cohen's d = 0.23, P < 0.001). On average, 15% of decisions made (21/140 per test) involved potentially harmful actions. Variability in scores from graduating medical schools (7%) carried over twice as much weight than from matched residency programs (3%). CONCLUSIONS: ACS ERRA scores provide valuable information to entering surgery residents and surgery program directors to aid in development of individual and group learning plans.

The American College of Surgeons Entering Resident Readiness Assessment Program: Development and National Pilot Testing Results.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the readiness of entering residents for clinical responsibilities, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Division of Education developed the "Entering Resident Readiness Assessment" (ACS-ERRA) Program. SUMMARY BACKGROUND: ACS-ERRA is an online formative assessment that uses a key features approach to measure clinical decision-making skills and focuses on cases encountered at the beginning of residency. Results can be used to develop learning plans to address areas that may need reinforcement. METHODS: A national panel of 16 content experts, 3 medical educators, and a psychometrician developed 98 short, key features cases. Each case required medical knowledge to be applied appropriately at challenging decision points during case management. Four pilot testing studies were conducted sequentially to gather validity evidence. RESULTS: Residents from programs across the United States participated in the studies (n = 58, 20, 87, 154, respectively). Results from the pilot studies enabled improvements after each pilot test. For the psychometric pilot (final pilot test), 2 parallel test forms of the ACS-ERRA were administered, each containing 40 cases, resulting in overall mean testing time of 2 hours 2 minutes (SD = 43 min). The mean test score was 61% (SD = 9%) and the G-coefficient reliability was 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: Results can be used to identify strengths and weaknesses in residents' decision-making skills and yield valuable information to create individualized learning plans. The data can also support efforts directed at the transition into residency training and inform discussions about levels of supervision. In addition, surgery program directors can use the aggregate test results to make curricular changes.

Towards a program of assessment for health professionals: from training into practice.

Despite multifaceted attempts to "protect the public," including the implementation of various assessment practices designed to identify individuals at all stages of training and practice who underperform, profound deficiencies in quality and safety continue to plague the healthcare system. The purpose of this reflections paper is to cast a critical lens on current assessment practices and to offer insights into ways in which they might be adapted to ensure alignment with modern conceptions of health professional education for the ultimate goal of improved healthcare. Three dominant themes will be addressed: (1) The need to redress unintended consequences of competency-based assessment; (2) The potential to design assessment systems that facilitate performance improvement; and (3) The importance of ensuring authentic linkage between assessment and practice. Several principles cut across each of these themes and represent the foundational goals we would put forward as signposts for decision making about the continued evolution of assessment practices in the health professions: (1) Increasing opportunities to promote learning rather than simply measuring performance; (2) Enabling integration across stages of training and practice; and (3) Reinforcing point-in-time assessments with continuous professional development in a way that enhances shared responsibility and accountability between practitioners, educational programs, and testing organizations. Many of the ideas generated represent suggestions for strategies to pilot test, for infrastructure to build, and for harmonization across groups to be enabled. These include novel strategies for OSCE station development, formative (diagnostic) assessment protocols tailored to shed light on the practices of individual clinicians, the use of continuous workplace-based assessment, and broadening the focus of high-stakes decision making beyond determining who passes and who fails. We conclude with reflections on systemic (i.e., cultural) barriers that may need to be overcome to move towards a more integrated, efficient, and effective system of assessment.

A content analysis of dental education research as reported in two journals.

Little systematic information has been collected about the nature and types of studies published in dental education journals. The goals of this study were to conduct a content analysis of articles published in dental education journals in two recent years, describe the type of research published, identify possible gaps, and propose future agendas. A content analysis of articles published in two leading dental education journals was performed for the years 2003 and 2008 with 253 articles reviewed. Most articles were descriptive and observational in nature. Curriculum was the most common topic of study addressed. The mean number of authors per article increased slightly over time, and authors held mostly a combination of D.D.S. and M.S. degrees or Ph.D. degrees. A review of the literature was present and critically discussed in almost three-quarters of the articles studied. One-third of the articles mentioned ethics review or approval. Most of the studies were conducted in North America, followed by Europe. About one-third of the articles reported a source of funding. A plea is made for more systematic studies of the effectiveness of instructional and curricular innovations and more clarification studies to better understand why certain initiatives or interventions work or not.

A hypothesis-driven physical examination learning and assessment procedure for medical students: initial validity evidence.

CONTEXT: Diagnostic accuracy is maximised by having clinical signs and diagnostic hypotheses in mind during the physical examination (PE). This diagnostic reasoning approach contrasts with the rote, hypothesis-free screening PE learned by many medical students. A hypothesis-driven PE (HDPE) learning and assessment procedure was developed to provide targeted practice and assessment in anticipating, eliciting and interpreting critical aspects of the PE in the context of diagnostic challenges. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to obtain initial content validity evidence, performance and reliability estimates, and impact data for the HDPE procedure. METHODS: Nineteen clinical scenarios were developed, covering 160 PE manoeuvres. A total of 66 Year 3 medical students prepared for and encountered three clinical scenarios during required formative assessments. For each case, students listed anticipated positive PE findings for two plausible diagnoses before examining the patient; examined a standardised patient (SP) simulating one of the diagnoses; received immediate feedback from the SP, and documented their findings and working diagnosis. The same students later encountered some of the scenarios during their Year 4 clinical skills examination. RESULTS: On average, Year 3 students anticipated 65% of the positive findings, correctly performed 88% of the PE manoeuvres and documented 61% of the findings. Year 4 students anticipated and elicited fewer findings overall, but achieved proportionally more discriminating findings, thereby more efficiently achieving a diagnostic accuracy equivalent to that of students in Year 3. Year 4 students performed better on cases on which they had received feedback as Year 3 students. Twelve cases would provide a reliability of 0.80, based on discriminating checklist items only. CONCLUSIONS: The HDPE provided medical students with a thoughtful, deliberate approach to learning and assessing PE skills in a valid and reliable manner.

Reliability and validity of key feature cases for the self-assessment of colon and rectal surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of the scores from "key feature" cases in the self-assessment of colon and rectal surgeons. BACKGROUND: Key feature (KF) cases specifically focus on the assessment of the unique challenges, critical decisions, and difficult aspects of the identification and management of clinical problems in practice. KF cases have been used to assess medical students and residents but rarely for specialists. METHODS: Responses from all 256 participants taking the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) Colon and Rectal Surgery Educational Program (CARSEP) V Self-assessment Examination (SAE) from 1997 to 2002 were scored and analyzed, including score reliability, item analysis for the factual (50 multiple-choice questions (MCQ)) and applied (9 KF cases) knowledge portions of the SAE, and the effect of examination preparation, examination setting, specialization, Board certification, and clinical experience on scores. RESULTS: The reliability (Cronbach alpha) of the scores for the MCQ and KF components was 0.97 and 0.95, respectively. The applied KF component of the SAE was more difficult than the factual MCQ component (0.52 versus 0.80, P < 0.001). Mean item discrimination (upper-lower groups) was 0.59 and 0.66 for the MCQ and KF components, respectively. Taking the test at the annual meeting was harder than at home (0.41 versus 0.81, P < 0.001). Content-related validity evidence for the KF cases was supported by mapping KF cases onto the examination blueprint and by judgments from expert colorectal surgeons about the challenging and critical nature of the KFs used. Construct validity of the KF cases was supported by incremental performance related to types of practice (general, anorectal, and colorectal), levels and types of Board certification, and years of clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: The self-assessment of surgical specialists, in this case colorectal surgeons, using KF cases is possible and yielded reliable and valid scores.

Experimental study design and grant writing in eight steps and 28 questions.

While writing a grant proposal may take a few days, the planning of the study takes much longer and requires thoughtful consideration. The use of a systematic and itemised approach can help in planning crucial details of a study. An eight-step, 28-question, iterative approach is proposed to help with the careful planning of experiments in order to maximise the researchers' chances of acceptance when submitting the study for funding and its results for publication. The steps include defining a relevant research question; selecting instrumentation, study design and statistics; determining sample size and sampling procedure; ensuring data quality throughout data collection and analysis; setting personnel and budget requirements, and writing a convincing grant proposal. Reviewers pay particular attention to the importance of the research topic and question, the presence of a clear problem statement and up to date review of the literature, the use of an optimal design and instrumentation, a sufficient and unbiased sample, and appropriate and well applied statistics. They also appreciate a clear and easy to follow proposal. The research question is the keystone of the entire enterprise, followed by the selection of an optimal study design and the control of possible confounding variables. No study is perfect. The researchers must constantly weigh advantages and disadvantages and select the most scientifically sound and feasible alternatives. While the steps and questions presented are best applied to experimental studies, the principles are also applicable to a wide range of questions and observational, evaluative and qualitative designs.