UCL logo

UCL Discovery

UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

The validity of the Annual Review of Competence Progression: a qualitative interview study of the perceptions of junior doctors and their trainers

Viney, RAE; Rich, A; Needleman, S; Griffin, A; Woolf, K; (2017) The validity of the Annual Review of Competence Progression: a qualitative interview study of the perceptions of junior doctors and their trainers. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine , 110 (3) pp. 110-117. 10.1177/0141076817690713. Green open access

[img]
Preview
Text
Viney_The validity of the Annual Review of Competence Progression.pdf - ["content_typename_Accepted version" not defined]

Download (828kB) | Preview

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate trainee doctors' and trainers' perceptions of the validity of the Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) using Messick’s conceptualisation of construct validity. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured focus groups and interviews with trainees and trainers. SETTING: Postgraduate medical training in London, Kent Surrey and Sussex, Yorkshire and Humber, and Wales in November/December 2015. Part of a larger study about the fairness of postgraduate medical training. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-six trainees and 41 trainers, comprising UK and international medical graduates from Foundation, General Practice, Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Psychiatry, Radiology, and Surgery, at all levels of training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trainee and trainer perceptions of the validity of the ARCP as an assessment tool. RESULTS: Participants recognised the need for assessment, but were generally dissatisfied with ARCPs, especially UK graduate trainees. Participants criticised the perceived tick-box nature of ARCPs as measuring clerical rather than clinical ability, and which they found detrimental to learning. Trainees described being able to populate their e-portfolios with just positive feedback; they also experienced difficulty getting assessments signed off by supervisors. ARCPs were perceived as poor at identifying struggling trainees and/or as discouraging excellence by focussing on minimal competency. Positive experiences of ARCPs arose when trainees could discuss their progress with interested supervisors. CONCLUSIONS: Trainee and trainer criticisms of ARCPs can be conceptualised as evidence that ARCPs lack validity as an assessment tool. Ongoing reforms to workplace-based assessments could address negative perceptions of the ‘tick-box’ elements, encourage constructive input from seniors and allow trainees to demonstrate excellence as well as minimal competency, while keeping patients safe.

Type: Article
Title: The validity of the Annual Review of Competence Progression: a qualitative interview study of the perceptions of junior doctors and their trainers
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1177/0141076817690713
Publisher version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0141076817690713
Language: English
Additional information: Copyright © The Royal Society of Medicine 2017. Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav. The published version of the article is available on SAGE Journals at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0141076817690713
Keywords: Qualitative, medical training, medical education, assessment, validity, ARCP, workplace-based assessment
UCL classification: UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > UCL Medical School
URI: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1537243
Downloads since deposit
155Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item