TY - JOUR
T1 - Defining Trainee Competence
T2 - Value Is in the Eye of the Stakeholder
AU - Yarris, Lalena M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/6/1
Y1 - 2019/6/1
N2 - In this issue of Academic Medicine, Lundsgaard and colleagues present "Embracing Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives in Defining Trainee Competence," a qualitative exploration of how various stakeholders contribute to the understanding of trainee competence. Drawing on stakeholder theory from business management, the authors of that report explore how the perceptions of key stakeholders (leaders/administrators, nurses/nurse practitioners, trainees, and patients) either confirm, enhance, or complicate the picture of competence that emerges from the perspectives of senior physician supervisors. In this Invited Commentary, the author considers the potential effects of applying stakeholder theory to educational assessment and elaborates on Lundsgaard and colleagues' findings that additional stakeholder perceptions may be redundant in some instances and present conflicting understandings of competence in others. She also emphasizes the importance of a process of defining competence, and ultimately developing assessment programs, that includes measuring and illuminating conflicting perceptions of what constitutes competence. Finally, the author considers potential applications of Lundsgaard and colleagues' results for educators and assessors with comprehensive assessment programs already in place. There are limitations and risks to applying a conceptual framework that aims to increase value for a company to the training of physicians. However, with thoughtful application, incorporating multiple stakeholders into instrument development and workplace-based assessment may provide educators with a more nuanced picture of competence that incorporates the values of those ultimately impacted by trainee performance.
AB - In this issue of Academic Medicine, Lundsgaard and colleagues present "Embracing Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives in Defining Trainee Competence," a qualitative exploration of how various stakeholders contribute to the understanding of trainee competence. Drawing on stakeholder theory from business management, the authors of that report explore how the perceptions of key stakeholders (leaders/administrators, nurses/nurse practitioners, trainees, and patients) either confirm, enhance, or complicate the picture of competence that emerges from the perspectives of senior physician supervisors. In this Invited Commentary, the author considers the potential effects of applying stakeholder theory to educational assessment and elaborates on Lundsgaard and colleagues' findings that additional stakeholder perceptions may be redundant in some instances and present conflicting understandings of competence in others. She also emphasizes the importance of a process of defining competence, and ultimately developing assessment programs, that includes measuring and illuminating conflicting perceptions of what constitutes competence. Finally, the author considers potential applications of Lundsgaard and colleagues' results for educators and assessors with comprehensive assessment programs already in place. There are limitations and risks to applying a conceptual framework that aims to increase value for a company to the training of physicians. However, with thoughtful application, incorporating multiple stakeholders into instrument development and workplace-based assessment may provide educators with a more nuanced picture of competence that incorporates the values of those ultimately impacted by trainee performance.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067278184&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067278184&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002643
DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002643
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30730366
AN - SCOPUS:85067278184
SN - 1040-2446
VL - 94
SP - 760
EP - 762
JO - Academic Medicine
JF - Academic Medicine
IS - 6
ER -