1) Competency-based medical education (CBME) is an outcomes-based approach that uses competencies as an organizing framework for designing, implementing, assessing, and evaluating medical education programs. 2) Traditional medical education focuses on knowledge acquisition with a fixed length and variable outcomes, while CBME emphasizes knowledge application with a variable length and defined outcomes. 3) Effective assessment in CBME uses a variety of objective measurement tools aligned with outcomes, incorporates direct observation and authentic tasks, and emphasizes formative assessment to drive future learning.

1. CBME and Assessment

2. Competency-Based Medical
Education
 is an outcomes-based approach to the
design, implementation, assessment and
evaluation of a medical education program
using an organizing framework of
competencies
The International CMBE Collaborators 2009

3. Traditional versus CBME: Start with System Needs
Frenk J. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education
to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010
3

4. The Transition to Competency
Fixed length, variable outcome Structure/Process
•Knowledge acquisition
•Single subjective measure
•Norm referenced evaluation
•Evaluation setting removed
•Emphasis on summative
Competency Based
Education
Competency Based
•Knowledge application
•Multiple objective measures
•Criterion referenced
•Evaluation setting: DO
Variable length, defined outcome
•Emphasis on formative
Caraccio et al 2002

5. Miller’s Assessment Pyramid
Impact on Patient
Faculty observation, audits, surveys
DOES
SHOWS
Standardized Patients
HOW
KNOWS HOW
Extended matching / CRQ
KNOWS MCQ EXAM

6. Training and Safe Patient Care
Trainee performance* X
Appropriate level of supervision**
Must = Safe, effective patient-centered care
* a function of level of competence in context
**a function of attending competence in context

7. Educational Program
Variable Structure/Process Competency-based
Driving force: Content-knowledge Outcome-knowledge
curriculum acquisition application
Driving force: process Teacher Learner
Path of learning Hierarchical Non-hierarchical
(Teacher→student) (Teacher↔student)
Responsibility: content Teacher Student and Teacher
Goal of educ. Knowledge acquisition Knowledge application
encounter
Typical assessment tool Single subject measure Multiple objective measures
Assessment tool Proxy Authentic (mimics real tasks
of profession)
Setting for evaluation Removed (gestalt) Direct observation
Evaluation Norm-referenced Criterion-referenced
Timing of assessment Emphasis on summative Emphasis on formative
Program completion Fixed time Variable time
Carracchio, et al. 2002.

8. Assessment “Building Blocks”
 Choice of right outcomes tied to an effective
curriculum – step 1!!
 Right combination of assessment methods
and tools
– MiniCEX, DOPS, Chart stimulated recall (CSR),
medical record audit
 Effective application of the methods and tools
 Effective processes to produce good
judgments

9. Measurement Tools: Criteria
Cees van der Vleuten’s utility index:
 Utility = V x R x A x EI x CE/Context*
– Where:
V = validity
R = reliability
A = acceptability
E = educational impact
C = cost effectiveness
*Context = ∑ Microsystems

10. Criteria for “Good” Assessment 1
– Validity or Coherence
– Reproducibility or Consistency
– Equivalence
– Feasibility
– Educational effect
– Catalytic effect
• This is the “new” addition – relates to
feedback that “drives future learning
forward.”
– Acceptability
1
Ottawa Conference Working Group 2010

11. Measurement Model
Donabedian Model (adapted)
• Structure: the way a training program is set up
and the conditions under which the program is
administered
• Organization, people, equipment and technology
• Process: the activities that result from the training
program
• Outcomes: the changes (desired or undesired) in
individuals or institutions that can be attributed to
the training program

12. Assessment During Training: Components
Clinical Competency Committee
•Periodic review – professional growth opportunities for all
•Early warning systems
Advisor
Structured Portfolio
•ITE (formative only)
•Monthly Evaluations
Trainee Program Leaders
•MiniCEX
•Review portfolio •Review portfolio
•Medical record audit/QI
•Reflect on contents periodically and
project
•Contribute to portfolio systematically
•Clinical question log
•Develop early warning
•Multisource feedback
system
•Trainee contributions
•Encourage reflection
(personal portfolio)
o Research project and self-assessment
Program Summative Assessment Process
Licensing and Certification
• Licensure and certification in Qatar

13. Model For Programmatic Assessment
(With permission from CPM van der Vleuten)
Training v v v v v v
Activities
Assessment
Activities
Supporting
Activities
Committee
= learning task Time
= learning artifact
= single assessment data-point
= single certification data point for mastery tasks
= learner reflection and planning
= social interaction around reflection (supervision)
= learning task being an assessment task also

14. Assessment Subsystem
 An assessment subsystem is a group of
people who work together on a regular basis
to perform evaluation and provide feedback
to a population of trainees over a defined
period of time
 This system has a structure to carry out
evaluation processes that produce an
outcome
 The assessment subsystem must ultimately
produce a valid entrustment judgment

15. Assessment Subsystem
 This group shares:
– Educational goals and outcomes
– Linked assessment and evaluation processes
– Information about trainee performance
– A desire to produce a trainee truly competent (at
a minimum) to enter practice or fellowship at the
end of training

16. Assessment Subsystem
 The subsystem must:
– Involve the trainees in the evaluation structure
and processes
– Provide both formative and summative
evaluation to the trainees
– Be embedded within, not outside the overall
educational system (assessment not an “add-
on”
– Provide a summative judgment for the
profession and public
• Effective Evaluation = Professionalism

17. Subsystem Components
 Effective Leadership
 Clear communication of goals
– Both trainees and faculty
 Evaluation of competencies is multi-faceted
 Data and Transparency
– Involvement of trainees
– Self-directed assessment and reflection by
trainees
– Trainees must have access to their “file”

18. Subsystem Components
 “Competency” committees
– Need wisdom and perspectives of the group
 Continuous quality improvement
– The evaluation program must provide data as
part of the CQI cycle of the program and
institution
– Faculty development
 Supportive Institutional Culture

19. Multi-faceted Evaluation
Systems-based
prac Interpersonal skills
and Communication
Medical record
Practice-based audit and MSF: Directed
learning and QI project per protocol
improvement
Twice/year
Structured Portfolio
EBM/ Mini-CEX:
Question Log 10/year
Patient care
Faculty ITE:
Evaluations 1/year
Medical
knowledge
Professionalism
■ Trainee-directed ■ Direct observation

20. Assessment During Training: Components
Clinical Competency Committee
•Periodic review – professional growth opportunities for all
•Early warning systems
Advisor
Structured Portfolio
•ITE (formative only)
•Monthly Evaluations
Trainee Program Leaders
•MiniCEX
•Review portfolio •Review portfolio
•Medical record audit/QI
•Reflect on contents periodically and
project
•Contribute to portfolio systematically
•Clinical question log
•Develop early warning
•Multisource feedback
system
•Trainee contributions
•Encourage reflection
(personal portfolio)
o Research project and self-assessment
Program Summative Assessment Process
Licensing and Certification
• USLME
•American Boards of Medical Specialties

21. Performance Data
 A training program cannot reach its full
potential without robust and ongoing
performance data
– Aggregation of individual trainee performance
– Performance measurement of the quality and
safety of the clinical care provided by the
training institution and the program

22. Competency Committees

23. Assessment During Training: Components
Clinical Competency Committee
•Periodic review – professional growth opportunities for all
•Early warning systems
Advisor
Structured Portfolio
•ITE (formative only)
•Monthly Evaluations
Trainee Program Leaders
•MiniCEX
•Review portfolio •Review portfolio
•Medical record audit/QI
•Reflect on contents periodically and
project
•Contribute to portfolio systematically
•Clinical question log
•Develop early warning
•Multisource feedback
system
•Trainee contributions
•Encourage reflection
(personal portfolio)
o Research project and self-assessment
Program Summative Assessment Process
Licensing and Certification
• USLME
•American Boards of Medical Specialties

24. Model For Programmatic Assessment
(With permission from CPM van der Vleuten)
Training v v v v v v
Activities
Assessment
Activities
Supporting
Activities
Committee
= learning task Time
= learning artifact
= single assessment data-point
= single certification data point for mastery tasks
= learner reflection and planning
= social interaction around reflection (supervision)
= learning task being an assessment task also

25. Committees and Information
 Evaluation (“competency”) committees can be
invaluable
• Develop group goals
• “Real-time” faculty development
• Key for dealing with difficult trainees
 Key “receptor site” for frameworks/milestones
• Synthesis and integration of multiple assessments

26. “Wisdom of the Crowd”
 Hemmer (2001) – Group conversations more
likely to uncover deficiencies in professionalism
among students
 Schwind, Acad. Med. (2004) –
• 18% of resident deficiencies requiring
active remediation only became apparent
through group discussion.
• Average discussion 5 minutes/resident
(range 1 – 30 minutes)

27. “Wisdom of the Crowd”
 Williams, Teach. Learn. Med. (2005)
• No evidence that individuals in groups
dominate discussions.
• No evidence of ganging up or piling on
 Thomas (2011) – Group assessment
improved inter-rater reliability and reduced
range restriction in multiple domains in an
internal medicine residency

28. Narratives and Judgments
 Pangaro (1999) – matching students to a
“synthetic” descriptive framework (RIME) reliable
and valid across multiple clerkships
 Regehr (2007) – Matching students to a
standardized set of holistic, realistic vignettes
improved discrimination of student performance
 Regehr (2012) – Faculty created narrative
“profiles” (16 in all) found to produce consistent
rankings of excellent, competent and problematic
performance.

29. The “System”
Accreditation:
Residents Institution ACGME/RRC
and Program
Assessments within Program Aggregation
Program:
•Direct observations
•Audit and Judgment and NAS Milestones
performance data Synthesis:
•Multi-source FB Committee ABIM Fastrak
•Simulation
•ITExam
No Aggregation
Faculty, PDs Certification:
and others ABIM
Milestone and EPAs
as Guiding Framework and Blueprint

30. Questions