Background <p>The assessment of clinical competence is crucial for the education and accreditation of health professionals. Although traditional in-person methods, such as objective structured clinical examinations and case-based clinical assessments are widely used, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the exploration of online formats. This study examined conducting a clinical case-based assessment in an online environment as an alternative to a traditional in-person assessment for evaluating the competence of internationally trained physiotherapists seeking registration in Australia.</p> Methods <p>A single-cohort observational study was conducted, where participants completed both online and in-person assessments. Participants were internationally trained physiotherapists seeking registration in Australia. Participants were scored as pass/fail on 8 domains and for overall outcome. Data were analysed by calculating pass/fail rates, absolute agreement, false negative and positive rates and predictive values.</p> Results <p>There was a 63% agreement in outcomes between each format, with comparable pass rates (online: 54%, in-person: 68%, <i>p</i> = 0.09). The online assessment demonstrated a strong positive predictive value (79%), indicating its potential to regularly predict competence as determined by the in-person assessment. However, online pass rates were significantly lower than in-person pass rates (60% and 78% respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.04) for the domain that scored competency in hands-on skills.</p> Conclusion <p>The findings suggest that online assessment could serve as a viable alternative to the in-person assessment. However, further refinements may be needed to address hands-on skill assessment in online assessments. This study adds to the current evidence base supporting the use of online assessments as an alternative to traditional in-person methods for evaluating clinical competence.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Exploring an online clinical competency assessment: an alternative to a traditional in-person assessment for internationally trained physiotherapists

  • Brooke Flew,
  • Lucy Chipchase,
  • Darren Lee,
  • Jodie A. McClelland

摘要

Background

The assessment of clinical competence is crucial for the education and accreditation of health professionals. Although traditional in-person methods, such as objective structured clinical examinations and case-based clinical assessments are widely used, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the exploration of online formats. This study examined conducting a clinical case-based assessment in an online environment as an alternative to a traditional in-person assessment for evaluating the competence of internationally trained physiotherapists seeking registration in Australia.

Methods

A single-cohort observational study was conducted, where participants completed both online and in-person assessments. Participants were internationally trained physiotherapists seeking registration in Australia. Participants were scored as pass/fail on 8 domains and for overall outcome. Data were analysed by calculating pass/fail rates, absolute agreement, false negative and positive rates and predictive values.

Results

There was a 63% agreement in outcomes between each format, with comparable pass rates (online: 54%, in-person: 68%, p = 0.09). The online assessment demonstrated a strong positive predictive value (79%), indicating its potential to regularly predict competence as determined by the in-person assessment. However, online pass rates were significantly lower than in-person pass rates (60% and 78% respectively, p = 0.04) for the domain that scored competency in hands-on skills.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that online assessment could serve as a viable alternative to the in-person assessment. However, further refinements may be needed to address hands-on skill assessment in online assessments. This study adds to the current evidence base supporting the use of online assessments as an alternative to traditional in-person methods for evaluating clinical competence.