mini-PAT (Peer Assessment Tool): A Valid Component of a National Assessment Programme in the UK?
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
To design, implement and evaluate a multisource feedback instrument to assess Foundation trainees across the UK.
mini-PAT (Peer Assessment Tool) was modified from SPRAT (Sheffield Peer Review Assessment Tool), an established multisource feedback (360°) instrument to assess more senior doctors, as part of a blueprinting exercise of instruments suitable for assessment in Foundation programmes (first 2 years postgraduation). mini-PAT’s content validity was assured by a mapping exercise against the Foundation Curriculum. Trainees’ clinical performance was then assessed using 16 questions rated against a six-point scale on two occasions in the pilot period. Responses were analysed to determine internal structure, potential sources of bias and measurement characteristics.
Six hundred and ninety-three mini-PAT assessments were undertaken for 553 trainees across 12 Deaneries in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Two hundred and nineteen trainees were F1s or PRHOs and 334 were F2s. Trainees identified 5544 assessors of whom 67% responded. The mean score for F2 trainees was 4.61 (SD = 0.43) and for F1s was 4.44 (SD = 0.56). An independent t test showed that the mean scores of these 2 groups were significantly different (t = −4.59, df 390, p < 0.001). 43 F1s (19.6%) and 19 F2s (5.6%) were assessed as being below expectations for F2 completion. The factor analysis produced 2 main factors, one concerned clinical performance, the other humanistic qualities. Seventy-four percent of F2 trainees could have been assessed by as few as 8 assessors (95% CI ±0.6) as they either scored an overall mean of 4.4 or above or 3.6 and below. Fifty-three percent of F1 trainees could have been assessed by as few as 8 assessors (95% CI ±0.5) as they scored an overall mean of 4.5 or above or 3.5 and below. The hierarchical regression when controlling for the grade of trainee showed that bias related to the length of the working relationship, occupation of the assessor and the working environment explained 7% of the variation in mean scores when controlling for the year of the Foundation Programme (R squared change = 0.06, F change = 8.5, significant F change <0.001).
As part of an assessment programme, mini-PAT appears to provide a valid way of collating colleague opinions to help reliably assess Foundation trainees.
- Good Medical Practice (2001). Good Medical Practice London. General Medical Council: http://www.gmc-uk.org
- Modernising Medical Careers (2002). Modernising Medical Careers London. Department of Health
- Curriculum for the Foundation Years in Postgraduate Education and Training (2005). Curriculum for the Foundation Years in Postgraduate Education and Training. The Foundation Programme Committee of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, in co-operation with the Modernising Medical Careers in the Departments of Health, Modernising Medical Careers in the Departments of Health: www.mmc.nhs.uk/pages/foundation/Curriculum
- The New Doctor (2005). The New Doctor. London, GMC: http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/foundation/new_doctor.asp
- Principles for an assessment system for postgraduate medical training (2005). Principles for an assessment system for postgraduate medical training. London, Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board, PMETB: www.pmetb.org.uk/pmetb/index.php?id=664
- Archer J.C., Davies H.A. (2004) Clinical management. Where medicine meets management. On reflection. Health Service Journal 114(5903): 26–27
- Archer J.C., Norcini J., et al. (2005) Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training. British Medical Jounal 330(7502): 1251–1253 CrossRef
- Borman W.C. (1974). The rating of individuals in organizations: an alternative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 12: 105–124
- Borman W.C. (1987). Personal constructs, performance schema, and “folk theories” of subordinate effectiveness: explorations in an army officer sample. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 40: 307–322
- Conway J.M., Huffcutt A.I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: a meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Human Performance 10: 331–360 CrossRef
- Cronbach L.J., Shavelson R. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement 64(3): 391–418 CrossRef
- Davies H.A., Archer J.C. (2005) Multi source feedback using Sheffield Peer Review Assessment Tool (SPRAT) – development and practical aspects. Clinical Teacher 2(2): 77–81 CrossRef
- Davies H, Archer J, et al. (2005) Assessment tools for foundation programmes – a practical guide. British Medical Journal Career Focus 330(7500): 195–196
- Downing S.M. (2003) Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Medical Education 37(9): 830–837 CrossRef
- Evans R., Elwyn G., et al. (2004) Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians. British Medical Journal 328(7450): 1240–1243 CrossRef
- Lockyer J.M., Violato C. (2004) An examination of the appropriateness of using a common peer assessment instrument to assess physician skills across specialties. Academic Medicine 79(10 suppl): S5–S8 CrossRef
- Norcini J.J., Blank L.L., et al. (2003) The mini-CEX: a method for assessing clinical skills. Annales of Internal Medicine 138(6): 476–481
- Ramsey, P.G.W., Wenrich, M.D., Carline, J.D., Inui, T.S., Larson, E.B. & LoGerfo, J.P. (1993). Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. Journal of American Medical Association 269(13): 1655–1660
- Sargeant J., Mann K., et al. (2005) Exploring family physicians’ reactions to multisource feedback: perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Medical Education 39(5): 497–504 CrossRef
- Sargeant J.M., Mann K.V., Ferrier S.N., Langille D.B., Muirhead P.D., Hayes V.M., Sinclair D.E. (2003) Responses of rural family physicians and their colleague and coworker raters to a multi-source feedback process: a pilot study. Academic Medicine 78(S10): S42–S44 CrossRef
- mini-PAT (Peer Assessment Tool): A Valid Component of a National Assessment Programme in the UK?
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Volume 13, Issue 2 , pp 181-192
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Foundation programme
- multisource feedback
- work based assessment
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Medical Education Research Fellow to the Foundation Assessment Programme, University of Sheffield, D Floor, Stephenson Wing, Sheffield Children’s Hospital, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TH, UK
- 2. Foundation for the Advancement of International Medical Education Research (FAIMER), 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
- 3. St George’s Hospital Medical School, Medical and Healthcare Education, 1st Floor, Hunter Wing, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK
- 4. London Deanery, Stewart House, 32 Russell Square, London, WC1B 5DN, UK
- 5. Academic Unit of Child Health, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TH, UK