Updating the Standards of Professional Competence in the Field of Toxicology: The Second Generation of Best Practice.

The American Board of Toxicology (ABT), in consultation with ACT Credentialing & Career Services (ACT), performed a practice analysis study of general toxicology in 2020-21. This work follows up on an initial practice analysis commissioned by the ABT and conducted in 2014-2015, results of which were published in 2016. The purpose of the current, second-generation study was to update and validate the existing process-based delineation of practice of general toxicologists, including major domains of responsibility and tasks performed in practice. In addition, the study included the review, update, and validation of the knowledge areas required by toxicologists developed by subject-matter experts (SMEs) that have been used for ABT examination development initiatives. Consistent with best practices in the field of credentialing, ABT also contracted with ACT to conduct 2 follow-on activities: a study to evaluate the reliability of a reduced-length ABT examination and a standard setting study to establish a valid passing score for the updated examination. In addition to informing ongoing ABT certification examination and question writing activities, it is anticipated that the results of this practice analysis will be of value to those responsible for developing graduate and undergraduate toxicology curricula, creating continuing education content, and authoring textbooks covering the contemporary practice of toxicology.

A practice analysis of toxicology.

In 2015, the American Board of Toxicology (ABT), with collaboration from the Society of Toxicology (SOT), in consultation with Professional Examination Service, performed a practice analysis study of the knowledge required for general toxicology. The purpose of this study is to help assure that the examination and requirements for attainment of Diplomate status are relevant to modern toxicology and based upon an empirical foundation of knowledge. A profile of the domains and tasks used in toxicology practice was developed by subject-matter experts representing a broad range of experiences and perspectives. An on-line survey of toxicologists, including Diplomates of the ABT and SOT members, confirmed the delineation. Results of the study can be used to improve understanding of toxicology practice, to better serve all toxicologists, and to present the role of toxicologists to those outside the profession. Survey results may also be used by the ABT Board of Directors to develop test specifications for the certifying examination and will be useful for evaluating and updating the content of professional preparation, development, and continuing education programs.

A Competency Framework for the Practice of Psychology: Procedures and Implications.

OBJECTIVE: Several competency models for training and practice in professional psychology have been proposed in the United States and Canada. Typically, the procedures used in developing and finalizing these models have involved both expert working groups and opportunities for input from interested parties. What has been missing, however, are empirical data to determine the degree to which the model reflects the views of members of the profession as a whole. METHOD: Using survey data from 466 licensed or registered psychologists (approximately half of whom completed one of two versions of the survey), we examined the degree to which psychologists, both those engaged primarily in practice and those involved in doctoral training, agreed with the competency framework developed by the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards' Practice Analysis Task Force (Rodolfa et al., 2013). RESULTS: When distinct time points in training and licensure or registration were considered (i.e., entry-level supervised practice in practicum settings, advanced-level supervised practice during internship, entry level independent practice, and advanced practice), there was limited agreement by survey respondents with the competency framework's proposal about when specific competencies should be attained. In contrast, greater agreement was evident by respondents with the competency framework when the reference point was focused on entry to independent practice (i.e., the competencies necessary for licensure or registration). CONCLUSION: We discuss the implications of these findings for the development of competency models, as well as for the implementation of competency requirements in both licensure or registration and training contexts.

Thirty years of hand therapy: The 2014 practice analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Quantitative and descriptive study. INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the Hand Therapy Certification Commission (HTCC), in consultation with Professional Examination Service, performed a practice analysis study of hand therapy, the fifth in a series of similar studies performed by HTCC over a 30-year period. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to gather data on current hand therapy practice to ensure the content of the Certified Hand Therapist (CHT) examination and credentialing program requirements match current practice. METHODS: Subject-matter experts from the United States and Canada, representing a broad range of experiences and perspectives, developed an updated delineation of the domains, tasks, knowledge, and techniques and tools used in hand therapy practice. Practicing hand therapists from the United States, Canada, Australia, and 13 other countries reviewed the delineation in a large-scale online survey. RESULTS: The survey overwhelmingly validated the updated profile. Additionally, the survey explored trends in hand therapy practice and compared findings with previous studies. The results were analyzed and compared with findings from previous studies. CONCLUSION: This analysis led to the revision of the test specifications for the HTCC; the affirmation of the definition of hand therapy; the refinement of the scope of hand therapy practice; and guidance for HTCC policy decisions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.

Domains, tasks, and knowledge for health informatics practice: results of a practice analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a comprehensive and current description of what health informatics (HI) professionals do and what they need to know. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six independent subject-matter expert panels drawn from and representative of HI professionals contributed to the development of a draft HI delineation of practice (DoP). An online survey was distributed to HI professionals to validate the draft DoP. A total of 1011 HI practitioners completed the survey. Survey respondents provided domain, task, knowledge and skill (KS) ratings, qualitative feedback on the completeness of the DoP, and detailed professional background and demographic information. RESULTS: This practice analysis resulted in a validated, comprehensive, and contemporary DoP comprising 5 domains, 74 tasks, and 144 KS statements. DISCUSSION: The HI practice analysis defined "health informatics professionals" to include practitioners with clinical (eg, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy), public health, and HI or computer science training. The affirmation of the DoP by reviewers and survey respondents reflects the emergence of a core set of tasks performed and KSs used by informaticians representing a broad spectrum of those currently practicing in the field. CONCLUSION: The HI practice analysis represents the first time that HI professionals have been surveyed to validate a description of their practice. The resulting HI DoP is an important milestone in the maturation of HI as a profession and will inform HI certification, accreditation, and education activities.

Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis 2015 (HESPA 2015): Process and Outcomes.

The Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis 2015 (HESPA 2015) was conducted to update and validate the Areas of Responsibilities, Competencies, and Sub-competencies for Entry- and Advanced-Level Health Education Specialists. Two data collection instruments were developed-one was focused on Sub-competencies and the other on knowledge items related to the practice of health education. Instruments were administered to health education specialists (N = 3,152) using online survey methods. A total of 2,508 survey participants used 4-point ordinal scales to rank Sub-competencies by frequency of use and importance. The other 644 participants used the same 4-point frequency scale to rank related knowledge items. Composite scores for Sub-competencies were calculated and subgroup comparisons were conducted that resulted in the validation of 7 Areas of Responsibilities, 36 Competencies, and 258 Sub-competencies. Of the Sub-competencies, 141 were identified as Entry-level, 76 Advanced 1-level, and 41 Advanced 2-level. In addition, 131 knowledge items were verified. The HESPA 2015 findings are compared with the results of the Health Education Job Analysis 2010 and will be useful to those involved in professional preparation, continuing education, and employment of health education specialists.

The National Health Educator Job Analysis 2010: process and outcomes.

The National Health Educator Job Analysis 2010 was conducted to update the competencies model for entry- and advanced-level health educators. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used. Structured interviews, focus groups, and a modified Delphi technique were implemented to engage 59 health educators from diverse work settings and experience levels in a seven-step instrument development process. An online survey was then completed by 1,022 practicing health educators. Survey participants used 4-point ordinal scales to rank subcompetencies by frequency of use and importance and related knowledge items by cognitive levels based on the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. Composite scores were calculated and subgroup comparisons conducted to validate 223 subcompetencies at entry (162), advanced-1 (42), and advanced-2 (19) levels of practice, along with 113 knowledge items. Advanced-level versus entry-level competencies and a comparison with the Competency Update Project model of 2006 are discussed. Implications and recommendations for the profession are provided.

2008 practice analysis study of hand therapy.

In 2008, the Hand Therapy Certification Commission (HTCC), in consultation with Professional Examination Service, performed a practice analysis study of hand therapy, the fourth in a series of similar studies performed by HTCC over a 23-year period. An updated profile of the domains, tasks, knowledge, and techniques and tools used in hand therapy practice was developed by subject-matter experts representing a broad range of experiences and perspectives. A large-scale online survey of hand therapists from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand overwhelmingly validated this profile. Additionally, trends in hand therapy practice and education were explored and compared with the previous studies. The results led to the revision of the test specifications for the Hand Therapy Certification Examination; permitted refinement of the definition and scope of hand therapy; identified professional development and continuing education opportunities; and guided HTCC policy decisions regarding exam and recertification eligibility requirements.