Generalisability: a key to unlock professional assessment

被引:134
作者
Crossley, J
Davies, H
Humphris, G
Jolly, B
机构
[1] Sheffield Childrens Hosp, Dept Paediat Med, Sheffield S10 2TH, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Manchester, Manchester Royal Infirm, Dept Psychiat, Manchester M13 9WL, Lancs, England
[3] Monash Univ, Fac Med, Ctr Med & Hlth Sci Educ, Clayton, Vic 3168, Australia
关键词
educational measurement; standards; education; medical undergraduate; professional competence; observer variation; reproducibility of results;
D O I
10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01320.x
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Context Reliability is defined as the extent to which a result reflects all possible measurements of the same construct. It is an essential measurement characteristic. Unfortunately, there are few objective tests for the most important aspects of the professional role because they are complex and intangible. In addition, professional performance varies markedly from setting to setting and case to case. Both these factors threaten reliability. aim This paper describes the classical approach to evaluating reliability and points out the limitations of this approach. It goes on to describe how generalisability theory solves many of these limitations. Conclusions A G-study uses variance component analysis to measure the contributions that all relevant factors make to the result (observer, situation, case, assessee and their interactions). This information can be combined to reflect the reliability of a single observation as a reflection of all possible measurements - a true reflection of reliability. It can also be used to estimate the reliability of a combined sample of several different observations, or to predict how many observations are required with different test formats to achieve a given level of reliability. Worked examples are used to illustrate the concepts.
引用
收藏
页码:972 / 978
页数:7
相关论文
共 10 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1972, The dependability of behaviourial measurements: Theory of generalzsability for scores and profiles
[2]  
Elstein A.S., 1978, MED PROBLEM SOLVING, DOI DOI 10.4159/HARVARD.9780674189089
[3]   FEEDBACK IN CLINICAL MEDICAL-EDUCATION [J].
ENDE, J .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1983, 250 (06) :777-781
[4]  
JOLLY B, 1997, GOOD ASSESSMENT GUID
[5]   Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination [J].
Regehr, G ;
MacRae, H ;
Reznick, RK ;
Szalay, D .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1998, 73 (09) :993-997
[6]  
Streiner D.L., 1998, Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use, V2nd
[7]  
Streiner DL, 1995, HLTH MEASUREMENT SCA, P104
[8]  
STREINER DL, 1995, HLTH MEASUREMENT SCA, P128
[9]   Legal vulnerability of assessment tools [J].
Tweed, M ;
Miola, J .
MEDICAL TEACHER, 2001, 23 (03) :312-314
[10]  
VANTHEL J, 1992, INT C P APPROACHES A