Using the Five Core Components of Competency-Based Medical Education to Support Implementation of CBVE

We use a utility model to illustrate that, firstly, selecting an assessment method involves context-dependent compromises, and secondly, that assessment is not a measurement problem but an instructional design problem, comprising educational, implementation and resource aspects. In the model, assessment characteristics are differently weighted depending on the purpose and context of the assessment. Of the characteristics in the model, we focus on reliability, validity and educational impact and argue that they are not inherent qualities of any instrument. Reliability depends not on structuring or standardisation but on sampling. Key issues concerning validity are authenticity and integration of competencies. Assessment in medical education addresses complex competencies and thus requires quantitative and qualitative information from different sources as well as professional judgement. Adequate sampling across judges, instruments and contexts can ensure both validity and reliability. Despite recognition that assessment drives learning, this relationship has been little researched, possibly because of its strong context dependence. When assessment should stimulate learning and requires adequate sampling, in authentic contexts, of the performance of complex competencies that cannot be broken down into simple parts, we need to make a shift from individual methods to an integral programme, intertwined with the education programme. Therefore, we need an instructional design perspective. Programmatic instructional design hinges on a careful description and motivation of choices, whose effectiveness should be measured against the intended outcomes. We should not evaluate individual methods, but provide evidence of the utility of the assessment programme as a whole.

Although health professions worldwide are shifting to competency-based education, no common taxonomy for domains of competence and specific competencies currently exists. In this article, the authors describe their work to (1) identify domains of competence that could accommodate any health care profession and (2) extract a common set of competencies for physicians from existing health professions' competency frameworks that would be robust enough to provide a single, relevant infrastructure for curricular resources in the Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC's) MedEdPORTAL and Curriculum Inventory and Reports (CIR) sites. The authors used the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)/American Board of Medical Specialties six domains of competence and 36 competencies delineated by the ACGME as their foundational reference list. They added two domains described by other groups after the original six domains were introduced: Interprofessional Collaboration (4 competencies) and Personal and Professional Development (8 competencies). They compared the expanded reference list (48 competencies within eight domains) with 153 competency lists from across the medical education continuum, physician specialties and subspecialties, countries, and health care professions. Comparison analysis led them to add 13 "new" competencies and to conflate 6 competencies into 3 to eliminate redundancy. The AAMC will use the resulting "Reference List of General Physician Competencies" (58 competencies in eight domains) to categorize resources for MedEdPORTAL and CIR. The authors hope that researchers and educators within medicine and other health professions will consider using this reference list when applicable to move toward a common taxonomy of competencies.