Cargando…

Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE)

BACKGROUND: Credentialing assessment for overseas-educated optometrists seeking registration in Australia and New Zealand is administered by the Optometry Council of Australia and New Zealand. The aim was to review the validation and outcomes of the written components of this exam to demonstrate cre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Backhouse, S., Chiavaroli, N. G., Schmid, K. L., McKenzie, T., Cochrane, A. L., Phillips, G., Jalbert, I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7786977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33407393
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02417-6
_version_ 1783632737454784512
author Backhouse, S.
Chiavaroli, N. G.
Schmid, K. L.
McKenzie, T.
Cochrane, A. L.
Phillips, G.
Jalbert, I.
author_facet Backhouse, S.
Chiavaroli, N. G.
Schmid, K. L.
McKenzie, T.
Cochrane, A. L.
Phillips, G.
Jalbert, I.
author_sort Backhouse, S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Credentialing assessment for overseas-educated optometrists seeking registration in Australia and New Zealand is administered by the Optometry Council of Australia and New Zealand. The aim was to review the validation and outcomes of the written components of this exam to demonstrate credentialing meets entry-level competency standards. METHODS: The Competency in Optometry Examination consists of two written and two clinical parts. Part 1 of the written exam comprises multiple choice questions (MCQ) covering basic and clinical science, while Part 2 has 18 short answer questions (SAQ) examining diagnosis and management. Candidates must pass both written components to progress to the clinical exam. Validity was evaluated using Kane’s framework for scoring (marking criteria, item analysis), generalization (blueprint), extrapolation (standard setting), and implications (outcome, including pass rates). A competency-based blueprint, the Optometry Australia Entry-level Competency Standards for Optometry 2014, guided question selection with the number of items weighted towards key competencies. A standard setting exercise, last conducted in 2017, was used to determine the minimum standard for both written exams. Item response theory (Rasch) was used to analyse exams, produce reliability metrics, apply consistent standards to the results, calibrate difficulty across exams, and score candidates. RESULTS: Data is reported on 12 administrations of the written examination since 2014. Of the 193 candidates who sat the exam over the study period, 133 (68.9%) passed and moved on to the practical component. Ninety-one (47.2%) passed both the MCQ and SAQ exams on their first attempt. The MCQ exam has displayed consistently high reliability (reliability index range 0.71 to 0.93, average 0.88) across all 12 administrations. Prior to September 2017 the SAQ had a set cutscore of 50%, and the difficulty of the exam was variable. Since the introduction of Rasch analysis to calibrate difficulty across exams, the reliability and power of the SAQ exam has been consistently high (separation index range 0.82 to 0.93, average 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from collective evidence support the validity of the written components (MCQ and SAQ) of the credentialing of the competency of overseas-educated optometrists in Australia and New Zealand. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-020-02417-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7786977
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77869772021-01-07 Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE) Backhouse, S. Chiavaroli, N. G. Schmid, K. L. McKenzie, T. Cochrane, A. L. Phillips, G. Jalbert, I. BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Credentialing assessment for overseas-educated optometrists seeking registration in Australia and New Zealand is administered by the Optometry Council of Australia and New Zealand. The aim was to review the validation and outcomes of the written components of this exam to demonstrate credentialing meets entry-level competency standards. METHODS: The Competency in Optometry Examination consists of two written and two clinical parts. Part 1 of the written exam comprises multiple choice questions (MCQ) covering basic and clinical science, while Part 2 has 18 short answer questions (SAQ) examining diagnosis and management. Candidates must pass both written components to progress to the clinical exam. Validity was evaluated using Kane’s framework for scoring (marking criteria, item analysis), generalization (blueprint), extrapolation (standard setting), and implications (outcome, including pass rates). A competency-based blueprint, the Optometry Australia Entry-level Competency Standards for Optometry 2014, guided question selection with the number of items weighted towards key competencies. A standard setting exercise, last conducted in 2017, was used to determine the minimum standard for both written exams. Item response theory (Rasch) was used to analyse exams, produce reliability metrics, apply consistent standards to the results, calibrate difficulty across exams, and score candidates. RESULTS: Data is reported on 12 administrations of the written examination since 2014. Of the 193 candidates who sat the exam over the study period, 133 (68.9%) passed and moved on to the practical component. Ninety-one (47.2%) passed both the MCQ and SAQ exams on their first attempt. The MCQ exam has displayed consistently high reliability (reliability index range 0.71 to 0.93, average 0.88) across all 12 administrations. Prior to September 2017 the SAQ had a set cutscore of 50%, and the difficulty of the exam was variable. Since the introduction of Rasch analysis to calibrate difficulty across exams, the reliability and power of the SAQ exam has been consistently high (separation index range 0.82 to 0.93, average 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from collective evidence support the validity of the written components (MCQ and SAQ) of the credentialing of the competency of overseas-educated optometrists in Australia and New Zealand. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-020-02417-6. BioMed Central 2021-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7786977/ /pubmed/33407393 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02417-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Backhouse, S.
Chiavaroli, N. G.
Schmid, K. L.
McKenzie, T.
Cochrane, A. L.
Phillips, G.
Jalbert, I.
Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE)
title Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE)
title_full Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE)
title_fullStr Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE)
title_full_unstemmed Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE)
title_short Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE)
title_sort assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (coe)
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7786977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33407393
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02417-6
work_keys_str_mv AT backhouses assessingprofessionalcompetenceinoptometryareviewofthedevelopmentandvalidityofthewrittencomponentofthecompetencyinoptometryexaminationcoe
AT chiavaroling assessingprofessionalcompetenceinoptometryareviewofthedevelopmentandvalidityofthewrittencomponentofthecompetencyinoptometryexaminationcoe
AT schmidkl assessingprofessionalcompetenceinoptometryareviewofthedevelopmentandvalidityofthewrittencomponentofthecompetencyinoptometryexaminationcoe
AT mckenziet assessingprofessionalcompetenceinoptometryareviewofthedevelopmentandvalidityofthewrittencomponentofthecompetencyinoptometryexaminationcoe
AT cochraneal assessingprofessionalcompetenceinoptometryareviewofthedevelopmentandvalidityofthewrittencomponentofthecompetencyinoptometryexaminationcoe
AT phillipsg assessingprofessionalcompetenceinoptometryareviewofthedevelopmentandvalidityofthewrittencomponentofthecompetencyinoptometryexaminationcoe
AT jalberti assessingprofessionalcompetenceinoptometryareviewofthedevelopmentandvalidityofthewrittencomponentofthecompetencyinoptometryexaminationcoe