Not in the file: How competency committees work with undocumented contributions.

INTRODUCTION: Competence committees (CCs) centre their work around documentation of trainees' performance; undocumented contributions (i.e. informal, unrecorded material like personal judgements, experiential anecdotes and contextual information) evoke suspicion even though they may play a role in decision making. This qualitative multiple case study incorporates insights from a social practice perspective on writing to examine the use of undocumented contributions by the CCs of two large post-graduate training programmes, one in a more procedural (MP) speciality and the other in a less procedural (LP) one. METHODS: Data were collected via observations of meetings and semi-structured interviews with CC members. In the analysis, conversations were organised into triptychs of lead-up, undocumented contribution(s), and follow-up. We then created thick descriptions around the undocumented contributions, drawing on conversational context and interview data to assign possible motivations and significance. RESULTS: We found no instances in which undocumented contributions superseded the contents of a trainee's file or stood in for missing documentation. The number of undocumented contributions varied between the MP CC (six instances over two meetings) and the LP CC (22 instances over three meetings). MP CC discussions emphasised Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA) observations, whereas LP CC members paid more attention to narrative data. The divergent orientations of the CCs-adding an 'advis[ing]/guid[ing]' role versus focusing simply on evaluation-offers the most compelling explanation. In lead-ups, undocumented contributions were prompted by missing and flawed documentation, conflicting evidence and documentation at odds with members' perceptions. Recognising other 'red flags' in documentation often required professional experience. In follow-ups, purposes served by undocumented contributions varied with context and were difficult to generalise; we, therefore, provide deeper analysis of two vignettes to illustrate. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest undocumented contributions often serve best efforts to ground decisions in documentation. We would encourage CC practices and policies be rooted in more nuanced approaches to documentation.

"Juggle the different hats we wear": enacted strategies for negotiating boundaries in overlapping relationships.

Despite agreement that teaching on professional boundaries is needed, the design of health profession curricula is challenged by a lack of research on how boundaries are maintained and disagreement on where boundaries should be drawn. Curricula constrained by these challenges can leave graduates without formal preparation for practice conditions. Dual role or overlapping relationships are an example: they continue to be taught as boundary crossings amidst mounting evidence that they must be routinely navigated in small, interconnected communities. In this study, we examined how physicians are navigating overlapping personal (non-sexual) and professional relationships with the goal to inform teaching and curricula on professional boundaries. Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, 22 physicians who had returned to their rural, northern and/or remote hometown in British Columbia, Canada or who had lived and practised in a such a community for decades were interviewed in iterative cycles informed by analysis. We identified four strategies described by physicians for regulating multiple roles within overlapping relationships: (a) signalling the appropriate role for the current context; (b) separating roles by redirecting an interaction to an appropriate context; (c) switching roles by pushing the appropriate role forward into the context and pulling other roles into the background; and (d) suspending an interfering role by ending a relationship. Negotiating boundaries within overlapping relationships may involve monitoring role clarity and role alignment, while avoiding role conflict. The enacted role regulation strategies could be critically assessed within teaching discussions on professional boundaries and also analyzed through further ethics research.

Residents as supervisors: How senior residents make ad hoc entrustment decisions.

BACKGROUND: As residency programmes transition to competency-based medical education, there has been substantial inquiry into understanding how ad hoc entrustment decisions are made by attending supervisors in the clinical context. However, although attendings are ultimately responsible for the decisions and actions of resident trainees, senior residents are often the ones directly supervising junior residents enrolled in competency-based training programmes. This clinical dynamic has been largely overlooked in the ad hoc entrustment literature. The purpose of this study was to explore the considerations senior residents entertain when making ad hoc entrustment decisions for their junior resident colleagues. METHODS: In semi-structured interviews, 11 senior resident supervisors (third, fourth and fifth year) in obstetrics and gynaecology described how they entrust junior residents with clinical activities in the moment. Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, data were iteratively collected and coded with constant comparison until theoretical sufficiency was determined. RESULTS: Senior residents described many similar considerations as attendings regarding ad hoc entrustment of junior residents, including patient safety, desire to optimise the learning environment, junior resident qualities (such as discernment and communication skills), learner handover from colleagues, and situational factors. Uniquely, senior residents discussed how their role as a middle manager and their desire to protect the junior resident (from burnout, becoming a second victim and from attendings) impacts their decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Although senior residents make ad hoc entrustment decisions with some similar considerations to attendings, they also seem to think about additional factors. It may be that these different considerations need to be accommodated in documentation of ad hoc entrustment decisions if these documents are to be used for high-stakes summative entrustment decisions made by competency committees.

Supervising the senior medical resident: Entrusting the role, supporting the tasks.

INTRODUCTION: Postgraduate competency-based medical education has been implemented with programmatic assessment that relies on entrustment-based ratings. Yet, in less procedurally oriented specialties such as internal medicine, the relationship between entrustment and supervision remains unclear. We undertook the current study to address how internal medicine supervisors conceptualise entrusting senior medical residents while supervising them on the acute care wards. METHODS: Guided by constructivist grounded theory, we interviewed 19 physicians who regularly supervised senior internal medicine residents on inpatient wards at three Canadian universities. We developed a theoretical model through iterative cycles of data collection and analysis using a constant comparative process. RESULTS: On the internal medicine ward, the senior resident role is viewed as a fundamentally managerial and rudimentary version of the supervisor's role. Supervisors come to trust their residents in the senior role through an early 'hands-on' period of assessment followed by a gradual withdrawal of support to promote independence. When considering entrustment, supervisors focused on entrusting a particular scope of the senior resident role as opposed to entrustment of individual tasks. Irrespective of the scope of the role that was entrusted, supervisors at times stepped in and stepped back to support specific tasks. CONCLUSION: Supervisors' stepping in and stepping back to support individual tasks on the acute care ward has an inconsistent relationship to their entrustment of the resident with a particular scope of the senior resident role. In this context, entrustment-based assessment would need to capture more of the holistic perspective of the supervisor's entrustment of the senior resident role. Understanding the dance of supervision, from relatively static overall support of the resident in their role, to fluidly stepping in and out for specific patient care tasks, allows us insight into the affordances of the supervisory relationship and how it may be leveraged for assessment.

The shift from disbelieving underperformance to recognising failure: A tipping point model.

CONTEXT: Coming face to face with a trainee who needs to be failed is a stern test for many supervisors. In response, supervisors have been encouraged to report evidence of failure through numerous assessment redesigns. And yet, there are lingering signs that some remain reluctant to engage in assessment processes that could alter a trainee's progression in the programme. Failure is highly consequential for all involved and, although rare, requires explicit study. Recent work identified a phase of disbelief that preceded identification of underperformance. What remains unknown is how supervisors come to recognise that a trainee needs to be failed. METHODS: Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, 42 physicians and surgeons in British Columbia, Canada shared their experiences supervising trainees who profoundly underperformed, required extensive remediation or were dismissed from the programme. We identified recurring themes using an iterative, constant comparative process. RESULTS: The shift from disbelieving underperformance to recognising failure involves three patterns: accumulation of significant incidents, discovery of an egregious error after negligible deficits or illumination of an overlooked deficit when pointed out by someone else. Recognising failure was accompanied by anger, certainty and a sense of duty to prevent harm. CONCLUSION: Coming to the point of recognising that a trainee needs to fail is akin to the psychological process of a tipping point where people first realise that noise is signal and cross a threshold where the pattern is no longer an anomaly. The co-occurrence of anger raises the possibility for emotions to be a driver of, and not only a barrier to, recognising failure. This warrants caution because tipping points, and anger, can impede detection of improvement. Our findings point towards possibilities for supporting earlier identification of underperformance and overcoming reluctance to report failure along with countermeasures to compensate for difficulties in detecting improvement once failure has been verified.

Distant and Hidden Figures: Foregrounding Patients in the Development, Content, and Implementation of Entrustable Professional Activities.

Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) describe activities that qualified professionals must be able to perform to deliver safe and effective care to patients. The entrustable aspect of EPAs can be used to assess learners through documentation of entrustment decisions, while the professional activity aspect can be used to map curricula. When used as an assessment framework, the entrustment decisions reflect supervisory judgments that combine trainees' relational autonomy and patient safety considerations. Thus, the design of EPAs incorporates the supervisor, trainee, and patient in a way that uniquely offers a link between educational outcomes and patient outcomes. However, achieving a patient-centered approach to education amidst both curricular and assessment obligations, educational and patient outcomes, and a supervisor-trainee-patient triad is not simple nor guaranteed. As medical educators continue to advance EPAs as part of their approach to competency-based medical education, the authors share a critical discussion of how patients are currently positioned in EPAs. In this article, the authors examine EPAs and discuss how their development, content, and implementation can result in emphasizing the trainee and/or supervisor while unintentionally distancing or hiding the patient. They consider creative possibilities for how EPAs might better integrate the patient as finding ways to better foreground the patient in EPAs holds promise for aligning educational outcomes and patient outcomes.

Numbers Encapsulate, Words Elaborate: Toward the Best Use of Comments for Assessment and Feedback on Entrustment Ratings.

The adoption of entrustment ratings in medical education is based on a seemingly simple premise: to align workplace-based supervision with resident assessment. Yet it has been difficult to operationalize this concept. Entrustment rating forms combine numeric scales with comments and are embedded in a programmatic assessment framework, which encourages the collection of a large quantity of data. The implicit assumption that more is better has led to an untamable volume of data that competency committees must grapple with. In this article, the authors explore the roles of numbers and words on entrustment rating forms, focusing on the intended and optimal use(s) of each, with a focus on the words. They also unpack the problematic issue of dual-purposing words for both assessment and feedback. Words have enormous potential to elaborate, to contextualize, and to instruct; to realize this potential, educators must be crystal clear about their use. The authors set forth a number of possible ways to reconcile these tensions by more explicitly aligning words to purpose. For example, educators could focus written comments solely on assessment; create assessment encounters distinct from feedback encounters; or use different words collected from the same encounter to serve distinct feedback and assessment purposes. Finally, the authors address the tyranny of documentation created by programmatic assessment and urge caution in yielding to the temptation to reduce words to numbers to make them manageable. Instead, they encourage educators to preserve some educational encounters purely for feedback, and to consider that not all words need to become data.

Urban ideals and rural realities: Physiotherapists navigating paradox in overlapping roles.

OBJECTIVES: Rural practitioners who develop a sense of belonging in their community tend to stay; however, belonging means neighbours become patients and non-clinical encounters with patients become unavoidable. Rural clinical experiences expose students to overlapping personal and professional relationships, but students cannot be duly prepared to navigate them because ethical practice standards primarily reflect urban, and not rural, contexts. To inform such educational activities, this study examines rural physiotherapists' strategies for navigating overlapping relationships. METHODS: Constructivist grounded theory guided iterative recruitment of 22 physiotherapists (PTs) living and practising in rural, northern or remote (RNR) communities in British Columbia, Canada, and analysis of their experiences navigating overlapping relationships. RESULTS: PTs routinely navigate overlapping relationships while mindful of practice standards, neighbourly and community expectations, personal well-being and patient welfare. While off-duty, they balance opposing expectations and manage various responsibilities to achieve contradictory goals such as being a professional who protects patient confidentiality while being an active and cordial community member. While on-duty, they face ethical dilemmas where deciding not to treat acquaintances potentially denies access to care but allows for clearer personal-professional boundaries and deciding to treat contravenes (urban) practice standards but could allow for customised patient care based on knowledge gained through both clinical and social interactions. CONCLUSION: Overlapping relationships are a rural norm. Urban ethical practice standards imposed on rural contexts put RNR practitioners in a paradoxical situation where clinical and social interactions must be but cannot be partitioned. Examining the identified strategies through the lens of paradox theory shows sophisticated cognitive framing of the conflicting and interrelated aims inherent to living and practising in RNR communities. Consequently, introducing a paradox mindset in educational activities could be explored as a way to prepare students for the ethically complex overlapping relationships that they will need to navigate during RNR clinical experiences.

A collective case study of supervision and competence judgments on the inpatient internal medicine ward.

INTRODUCTION: Workplace-based assessment in competency-based medical education employs entrustment-supervision scales to suggest trainee competence. However, clinical supervision involves many factors and entrustment decision-making likely reflects more than trainee competence. We do not fully understand how a supervisor's impression of trainee competence is reflected in their provision of clinical support. We must better understand this relationship to know whether documenting level of supervision truly reflects trainee competence. METHODS: We undertook a collective case study of supervisor-trainee dyads consisting of attending internal medicine physicians and senior residents working on clinical teaching unit inpatient wards. We conducted field observations of typical daily activities and semi-structured interviews. Data was analysed within each dyad and compared across dyads to identify supervisory behaviours, what triggered the behaviours, and how they related to judgments of trainee competence. RESULTS: Ten attending physician-senior resident dyads participated in the study. We identified eight distinct supervisory behaviours. The behaviours were enacted in response to trainee and non-trainee factors. Supervisory behaviours corresponded with varying assessments of trainee competence, even within a dyad. A change in the attending's judgment of the resident's competence did not always correspond with a change in subsequent observable supervisory behaviours. DISCUSSION: There was no consistent relationship between a trigger for supervision, the judgment of trainee competence, and subsequent supervisory behaviour. This has direct implications for entrustment assessments tying competence to supervisory behaviours, because supervision is complex. Workplace-based assessments that capture narrative data including the rationale for supervisory behaviours may lead to deeper insights than numeric entrustment ratings.

Idiosyncrasy in Assessment Comments: Do Faculty Have Distinct Writing Styles When Completing In-Training Evaluation Reports?

PURPOSE: Written comments are gaining traction as robust sources of assessment data. Compared with the structure of numeric scales, what faculty choose to write is ad hoc, leading to idiosyncratic differences in what is recorded. This study offers exploration of what aspects of writing styles are determined by the faculty offering comment and what aspects are determined by the trainee being commented upon. METHOD: The authors compiled in-training evaluation report comment data, generated from 2012 to 2015 by 4 large North American Internal Medicine training programs. The Linguistic Index and Word Count (LIWC) was used to categorize and quantify the language contained. Generalizability theory was used to determine whether faculty could be reliably discriminated from one another based on writing style. Correlations and ANOVAs were used to determine what styles were related to faculty or trainee demographics. RESULTS: Datasets contained 23-142 faculty who provided 549-2,666 assessments on 161-989 trainees. Faculty could easily be discriminated from one another using a variety of LIWC metrics including word count, words per sentence, and the use of "clout" words. These patterns appeared person specific and did not reflect demographic factors such as gender or rank. These metrics were similarly not consistently associated with trainee factors such as postgraduate year or gender. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty seem to have detectable writing styles that are relatively stable across the trainees they assess, which may represent an under-recognized source of construct irrelevance. If written comments are to meaningfully contribute to decision making, we need to understand and account for idiosyncratic writing styles.

Seeing but not believing: Insights into the intractability of failure to fail.

CONTEXT: Inadequate documentation of observed trainee incompetence persists despite research-informed solutions targeting this failure to fail phenomenon. Documentation could be impeded if assessment language is misaligned with how supervisors conceptualise incompetence. Because frameworks tend to itemise competence as well as being vague about incompetence, assessment design may be improved by better understanding and describing of how supervisors experience being confronted with a potentially incompetent trainee. METHODS: Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, analysis using a constant comparison approach was iterative and informed data collection. We interviewed 22 physicians about their experiences supervising trainees who demonstrate incompetence; we quickly found that they bristled at the term 'incompetence,' so we began to use 'underperformance' in its place. RESULTS: Physicians began with a belief and an expectation: all trainees should be capable of learning and progressing by applying what they learn to subsequent clinical experiences. Underperformance was therefore unexpected and evoked disbelief in supervisors, who sought alternate explanations for the surprising evidence. Supervisors conceptualised underperformance as: an inability to engage with learning due to illness, a life event or learning disorders, so that progression was stalled, or an unwillingness to engage with learning due to lack of interest, insight or humility. CONCLUSION: Physicians conceptualise underperformance as problematic progression due to insufficient engagement with learning that is unresponsive to intensified supervision. Although failure to fail tends to be framed as a reluctance to document underperformance, the prior phase of disbelief prevents confident documentation of performance and delays identification of underperformance. The findings offer further insight and possible new solutions to address under-documentation of underperformance.

Educational Impact Drives Feasibility of Implementing Daily Assessment in the Workplace.

Construct: Authors investigated the perspectives of stakeholders on feasibility elements of workplace-based assessments (WBA) with varying designs. Background: In the transition to competency-based medical education, WBA are taking a more prominent role in assessment programs. However, the increased demand for WBA leads to new challenges for implementing suitable WBA tools with published validity evidence, while also being feasible and useful in practice. Despite the availability of published WBA tools, implementation does not necessarily occur; a more fulsome understanding of the perspectives of stakeholders who are ultimately the end-users of these tools, as well as the system factors that both deter or support their use, could help to explain why evidence-based assessment tools may not be incorporated into residency programs. Approach: We examined the perspectives of two groups of stakeholders, surgical teachers and resident learners, during an assessment intervention that varied the assessment tools while keeping the assessment process constant. We chose diverse exemplars from published assessment tools that each represented a different response format: global rating scales, step-by-step surgical rubrics, and an entrustability scale. The primary purpose was to investigate how stakeholders are impacted by WBA tools with varying response formats to better understand their feasibility for assessment of cataract surgery. Secondarily, we were able to explore the culture of assessment in cataract surgery education including stakeholders' perceptions of WBA unrelated to assessment form design. Semi-structured interviews with teachers and a focus group with the residents enabled discussion of their perspectives on dimensions of the tools such as acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, adaptation, and integration. Findings: Three themes summarize teachers' and residents' experiences with the assessment tools: (1) Feedback is the priority; (2) Forms informing coaching; and (3) Forcing the conversation. The tools helped to facilitate the feedback conversation by serving as a reminder to initiate the conversation, a framework to structure the conversation, and a memory aid for providing detailed feedback. Surgical teachers preferred the assessment tool with a design that best aligned with their approach to teaching and how they wanted to provide feedback. Orientation to the tools, combined with established remediation pathways, may help preceptors to better use assessment tools and improve their ability to give critical feedback. Conclusions: Feedback, more so than assessment, dominated the comments provided by both teachers and residents after using the various WBA tools. Our typical assessment design efforts focus on the creation or selection of a robust assessment tool according to good design and measurement principles, but the current findings would encourage us to also prioritize the coaching relationship and include efforts to design WBA tools to function as a mediator to augment teaching, learning, and feedback exchange within that relationship in the workplace.

Taken Out of Context: Hazards in the Interpretation of Written Assessment Comments.

PURPOSE: Written comments are increasingly valued for assessment; however, a culture of politeness and the conflation of assessment with feedback lead to ambiguity. Interpretation requires reading between the lines, which is untenable with large volumes of qualitative data. For computer analytics to help with interpreting comments, the factors influencing interpretation must be understood. METHOD: Using constructivist grounded theory, the authors interviewed 17 experienced internal medicine faculty at 4 institutions between March and July, 2017, asking them to interpret and comment on 2 sets of words: those that might be viewed as "red flags" (e.g., good, improving) and those that might be viewed as signaling feedback (e.g., should, try). Analysis focused on how participants ascribed meaning to words. RESULTS: Participants struggled to attach meaning to words presented acontextually. Four aspects of context were deemed necessary for interpretation: (1) the writer; (2) the intended and potential audiences; (3) the intended purpose(s) for the comments, including assessment, feedback, and the creation of a permanent record; and (4) the culture, including norms around assessment language. These contextual factors are not always apparent; readers must balance the inevitable need to interpret others' language with the potential hazards of second-guessing intent. CONCLUSIONS: Comments are written for a variety of intended purposes and audiences, sometimes simultaneously; this reality creates dilemmas for faculty attempting to interpret these comments, with or without computer assistance. Attention to context is essential to reduce interpretive uncertainty and ensure that written comments can achieve their potential to enhance both assessment and feedback.

Entrustment Ratings in Internal Medicine Training: Capturing Meaningful Supervision Decisions or Just Another Rating?

The implementation of Entrustable Professional Activities has led to the simultaneous development of assessment based on a supervisor's entrustment of a learner to perform these activities without supervision. While entrustment may be intuitive when we consider the direct observation of a procedural task, the current implementation of rating scales for internal medicine's non-procedural tasks, based on entrustability, may not translate into meaningful learner assessment. In these Perspectives, we outline a number of potential concerns with ad hoc entrustability assessments in internal medicine post-graduate training: differences in the scope of procedural vs. non-procedural tasks, acknowledgement of the type of clinical oversight common within internal medicine, and the limitations of entrustment language. We point towards potential directions for inquiry that would require us to clarify the purpose of the entrustability assessment, reconsider each of the fundamental concepts of entrustment in internal medicine supervision and explore the use of descriptive rather than numeric assessment approaches.

Comparatively salient: examining the influence of preceding performances on assessors' focus and interpretations in written assessment comments.

Recent literature places more emphasis on assessment comments rather than relying solely on scores. Both are variable, however, emanating from assessment judgements. One established source of variability is "contrast effects": scores are shifted away from the depicted level of competence in a preceding encounter. The shift could arise from an effect on the range-frequency of assessors' internal scales or the salience of performance aspects within assessment judgments. As these suggest different potential interventions, we investigated assessors' cognition by using the insight provided by "clusters of consensus" to determine whether any change in the salience of performance aspects was induced by contrast effects. A dataset from a previous experiment contained scores and comments for 3 encounters: 2 with significant contrast effects and 1 without. Clusters of consensus were identified using F-sort and latent partition analysis both when contrast effects were significant and non-significant. The proportion of assessors making similar comments only significantly differed when contrast effects were significant with assessors more frequently commenting on aspects that were dissimilar with the standard of competence demonstrated in the preceding performance. Rather than simply influencing range-frequency of assessors' scales, preceding performances may affect salience of performance aspects through comparative distinctiveness: when juxtaposed with the context some aspects are more distinct and selectively draw attention. Research is needed to determine whether changes in salience indicate biased or improved assessment information. The potential should be explored to augment existing benchmarking procedures in assessor training by cueing assessors' attention through observation of reference performances immediately prior to assessment.

Beyond hands-on and hands-off: supervisory approaches and entrustment on the inpatient ward.

CONTEXT: The concept of entrustment has garnered significant attention in medical specialties, despite variability in supervision styles and entrustment decisions. There is a need to further study the enactment of supervision on inpatient wards to inform competency-based assessment design. METHODS: Attending physicians, while supervising on clinical teaching inpatient wards, were invited to describe a recent moment of enacting supervision with an internal medicine resident. Constructivist grounded theory guided data collection and analysis. Interview transcripts were analysed in iterative cycles to inform data collection. Constant comparison was used to build a theory of supervision from the identified themes. RESULTS: In 2016-2017, 23 supervisors from two Canadian universities with supervision reputations ranging from very involved to less involved participated in one or two interviews (total: 28). Supervisors were not easily dichotomised into styles based on behaviour because all used similar oversight strategies. Supervisors described adjusting between 'hands-on' (e.g. detail oriented) and 'hands-off' (e.g. less visible on ward) styles depending on the context. All also contended with the competing roles of clinical teacher and care provider. Supervisors made a distinction between the terms `entrust' and `trust', and did not grant complete entrustment to senior residents. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that a supervisor's perceived responsibility for the ward underlies adjustments between 'hands-on' (i.e. personal ward responsibility) and 'hands-off' (i.e. shared ward responsibility) styles. Our approaches to clinical supervision model combines this responsibility tension with the tension between patient care and teaching to illustrate four supervisory approaches, each with unique priorities influencing entrustment. Given the fluidity in supervision, documenting changes in oversight strategies, rather than absolute levels of entrustment, may be more informative for assessment purposes. Research is needed to determine if there is sufficient association between the supervision provided, the entrustment decision made and the supervisor's trust in a trainee to use these as proxies in assessing a trainee's competence.

Inter-rater variability as mutual disagreement: identifying raters' divergent points of view.

Whenever multiple observers provide ratings, even of the same performance, inter-rater variation is prevalent. The resulting 'idiosyncratic rater variance' is considered to be unusable error of measurement in psychometric models and is a threat to the defensibility of our assessments. Prior studies of inter-rater variation in clinical assessments have used open response formats to gather raters' comments and justifications. This design choice allows participants to use idiosyncratic response styles that could result in a distorted representation of the underlying rater cognition and skew subsequent analyses. In this study we explored rater variability using the structured response format of Q methodology. Physician raters viewed video-recorded clinical performances and provided Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) assessment ratings through a web-based system. They then shared their assessment impressions by sorting statements that described the most salient aspects of the clinical performance onto a forced quasi-normal distribution ranging from "most consistent with my impression" to "most contrary to my impression". Analysis of the resulting Q-sorts revealed distinct points of view for each performance shared by multiple physicians. The points of view corresponded with the ratings physicians assigned to the performance. Each point of view emphasized different aspects of the performance with either rapport-building and/or medical expertise skills being most salient. It was rare for the points of view to diverge based on disagreements regarding the interpretation of a specific aspect of the performance. As a result, physicians' divergent points of view on a given clinical performance cannot be easily reconciled into a single coherent assessment judgment that is impacted by measurement error. If inter-rater variability does not wholly reflect error of measurement, it is problematic for our current measurement models and poses challenges for how we are to adequately analyze performance assessment ratings.