Abstract
This study investigates the construct validity of three methods used to evaluate clinical competence in medicine: standardized test, supervisor performance ratings, and peer performance ratings. Three attributes of clinical competence are investigated: cognitive abilities, interpersonal skills, and professional qualities. Measures representing each attribute-method combination include: National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) examination (standardized test of cognitive abilities); two scales derived from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) (standardized test of interpersonal skills and professional qualities); and the three scales derived from the Resident Evaluation Form (REF) (peer and supervisor ratings of all three attributes). Scores for each attribute-method combination were obtained from a convenience sample of 166 resident physicians in three primary care specialties. These scores were cast into a multitrait-multimethod matrix design and analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis. Results suggest a lack of construct validity for the CPI and REF scales, moderate convergent validity for the NBME, and substantial method variance in the REF-derived ratings. Findings are discussed in terms of the implications for a theory of medical clinical competence, further research and development in clinical competence measurement, and current measurement practice in medical education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.