Conclusion
Expertise varies by domain and does not readily transfer from one domain to another. In performance assessment, the application of expertise begins with the selection of the objectives to be assessed. Clarity about the assessment of objectives directs the designers to the most relevant domains of needed expertise. For assessment outcomes to be valid, the context, design, scoring guides, examiners, training, and implementation—all of which imply different areas of expertise—must be considered. Sometimes these areas of expertise may reside in one expert, and sometimes they may be constellated across different experts. The realistic infusion of expertise throughout the assessment is what supports validity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boulet JR, Smee SM, Dillon GF, et al: The use of standardized patient assessments for certification and licensure decisions. Simul Healthc 2009; 4: 35–42
McLaughlin K, Gregor L, Jones A, et al: Can standardized patients replace physicians as OSCE examiners? BMC Med Educ 2006; 6: 12
Hawkins R, MacKrell Gaglione M, et al: Assessment of patient management skills and clinical skills of practicing doctors using computer-based case simulations and standardized patients. Med Educ 2004; 38: 958–968
Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang CH: Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: development and testing of the communication assessment tool. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 67: 333–342
Mercer LM, Tanabe P, Pang PS, et al: Patient perspectives on communication with the medical team: pilot study using the Communication Assessment Tool-Team (CAT-T). Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73: 220–223
Wallace P: Coaching Standardized Patients for Use in the Assessment of Clinical Competence. New York, Springer, 2007
Heine N, Garman K, Wallace P, et al: An analysis of standardized patient checklist errors and their effect on student scores. Med Educ 2003; 37: 99–104
Boulet JR, van Zanten M, de Champlain A, et al: Checklist content on a standardized patient assessment: an ex post facto review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008; 13: 59–69
Hodges B, McIlroy JH: Analytic global OSCE ratings are sensitive to level of training. Med Educ 2003; 37: 1012–1016
Clyman SG, Melnick, Del, Clauser BE: Computer-based case simulations from medicine: assessing skills in patient management, in Innovative Simulations for Assessing Professional Competence. Edited by Tekian A, McGahie WC. Chicago, University of Illinois, Department of Medical Education, 1999, pp 29–41
Williamson D, Behar L, Hone A: “Mental model” comparison of automated and human scoring. J Educational Measurement 1999; 36: 158–184
van Zanten M, Boulet JR, McKinley D: Using standardized patients to assess the interpersonal skills of physicians: six years’ experience with a high-stakes certification examination. Health Commun 2007; 22: 195–205
Boulet JR, Ben-David MF, Burdick W, et al: An investigation of the sources of measurement error in the post-encounter written scores from standardized patient examinations. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 1998; 3: 89–100
Boulet JR, McKinley DW, Norcini JJ, et al: Assessing the comparability of standardized patient and physician evaluations of clinical skills. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2002; 7: 85–97
Clauser BE: Further discussion of SP checklists and videotaped performances. Acad Med 2000; 75: 315–316; author reply 317–318
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
At the time of submission, the authors disclosed no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Parkes, J., Sinclair, N. & McCarty, T. Appropriate Expertise and Training for Standardized Patient Assessment Examiners. Acad Psychiatry 33, 285–288 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.33.4.285
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.33.4.285