Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Comprehensive Textbook of Healthcare Simulation pp 135–160Cite as

Competency Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Assessment is an essential feature of the competency-based educational model because only by means of evaluation can we verify achievement of specified learning outcomes. This is especially important in the context of health professions education, where the competencies of interest impact the well-being of patients. Therefore, just as with planning the instructional component of a curriculum, development of an assessment system must start with the specification of desired learning outcomes in the form of knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected of trainees or practitioners in order to provide safe and effective patient care.

Issues to consider when judging the quality of evaluation methods include the reliability of data generated by the assessment, validity of decisions based on test results, educational impact on individuals undergoing evaluation and other stakeholders, and the feasibility of implementing the assessment system. In addition to these criteria and the particular competencies to be evaluated, the choice of testing methods from among numerous available techniques should consider multiple dimensions, such as appropriate level of assessment, stage of learner development, and, very importantly, overall purpose and context of the assessment. Ultimately, no one method can assess all aspects of professional competence, but familiarity with strengths and limitations of various modalities can guide the development of appropriate assessment systems. Strengths of simulation-based methods for evaluative purposes include the ability to assess actual performance of psychomotor skills and demonstration of nontechnical professional competencies in environments that safely and authentically mirror real practice settings. In addition, the programmability of simulations permits on-demand testing of rare but important clinical situations and consistent presentation of evaluation problems to multiple examinees; this reproducibility becomes especially important when high-stakes decisions are contingent upon such assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27(1):10–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):50–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;306(9):978–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hatala R, Kassen BO, Nishikawa J, Cole G, Issenberg SB. Incorporating simulation technology in a Canadian internal medicine specialty examination: a descriptive report. Acad Med. 2005;80(6):554–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hatala R, Scalese RJ, Cole G, Bacchus M, Kassen B, Issenberg SB. Development and validation of a cardiac findings checklist for use with simulator-based assessments of cardiac physical examination competence. Simul Healthc. 2009;4(1):17–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barrows HS, Abahamson S. The programmed patient: a technique for appraising student performance in clinical neurology. J Med Educ. 1964;39:802–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abrahamson S, Denson JS, Wolf RM. Effectiveness of a simulator in training anesthesiology residents. J Med Educ. 1969;44(6):515–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stevenson A, Lindberg CA, editors. New Oxford American Dictionary. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  9. McGaghie WC. Simulation in professional competence assessment: basic considerations. In: Tekian A, McGuire CH, McGaghie WC, editors. Innovative simulations for assessing professional competence. Chicago: Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1999. p. 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Maran NJ, Glavin RJ. Low- to high-fidelity simulation – a continuum of medical education? Med Educ. 2003;37 Suppl 1:22–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Quirey Jr WO, Adams J. National Practitioner Data Bank revisited – the lessons of Michael Swango, M.D. Virginia State Bar Web site. http://www.vsb.org/sections/hl/bank.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  12. The Shipman Inquiry. Second report: The police investigation of March 1998. Official Documents Web site. http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm58/5853/5853.pdf. Published 2003. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  13. Harden RM, Crosby JR, Davis M. An introduction to outcome-based education. Med Teach. 1999;21(1):7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harden RM, Crosby JR, Davis MH, Friedman M. AMEE guide no. 14: outcome-based education: part 5. From competency to meta-competency: a model for the specification of learning outcomes. Med Teach. 1999;21(6):546–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwarz MR, Wojtczak A. Global minimum essential requirements: a road towards competence-oriented medical education. Med Teach. 2002;24(2):125–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. General Medical Council. Tomorrow’s Doctors – outcomes and standards for undergraduate medical education. 2nd ed. London: General Medical Council; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Scottish Deans’ Medical Curriculum Group. The Scottish Doctor – learning outcomes for the medical undergraduate in Scotland: a foundation for competent and reflective practitioners. 3rd ed. Dundee: Association for Medical Education in Europe; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Frank JR, editor. The CanMEDS 2005 physician competency framework. Better standards. Better physicians. Better care. Ottawa: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Core program requirements categorization. ACGME 2012 Standards – Categorization of Common Program Requirements Web site. http://www.acgme-nas.org/assets/pdf/CPR-Categorization-TCC.pdf. Published 7 Feb 2012. Updated 2012. Accessed 24 June 2012.

  20. General Medical Council. Good medical practice. 3rd ed. London: General Medical Council; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  21. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. The essentials of baccalaureate education for professional nursing practice. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges of Nursing; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Core competencies for nurse practitioners. National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties (NONPF) Web site. http://nonpf.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=14. Updated 2012. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  23. Competencies for the physician assistant profession. National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants Web site. http://www.nccpa.net/pdfs/Definition%20of%20PA%20Competencies%203.5%20for%20Publication.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  24. Core competencies. Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges Web site. http://www.aavmc.org/data/files/navmec/navmeccorecompetencies.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  25. Van Der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ. 2005;39(3):309–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, et al. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 conference. Med Teach. 2011;33(3):206–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Axelson RD, Kreiter CD. Reliability. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Clauser BE, Margolis MJ, Swanson DB. Issues of validity and reliability for assessments in medical education. In: Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008. p. 10–23.

    Google Scholar 

  29. McAleer S. Choosing assessment instruments. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, editors. A practical guide for medical teachers. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone; 2005. p. 302–10.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Downing SM, Haladyna TM. Validity and its threats. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 21–56.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37(9):830–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kane MT. An argument-based approach to validity. Psych Bull. 1992;112(3):527–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kane MT. The assessment of professional competence. Eval Health Prof. 1992;15(2):163–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McGaghie WC, Cohen ER, Wayne DB. Are United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 1 and 2 scores valid measures for postgraduate medical residency selection decisions? Acad Med. 2011;86(1):48–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wayne DB, Fudala MJ, Butter J, et al. Comparison of two standard-setting methods for advanced cardiac life support training. Acad Med. 2005;80(10 Suppl):S63–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wayne DB, Butter J, Cohen ER, McGaghie WC. Setting defensible standards for cardiac auscultation skills in medical students. Acad Med. 2009;84(10 Suppl):S94–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Messick S. Validity. In: Linn R, editor. Educational measurement. 3rd ed. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan; 1989. p. 13–103.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Changing education, changing assessment, changing research? Med Educ. 2004;38(8):805–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States/National Board of Medical Examiners. 2012 Bulletin of Information. Philadelphia: United States Medical Licensing Examination.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bulletin: Examination content. United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Web site. http://www.usmle.org/bulletin/exam-content/#step2cs. Published 2011. Accessed Aug 2012.

  41. Hodges B, Regehr G, Hanson M, McNaughton N. An objective structured clinical examination for evaluating psychiatric clinical clerks. Acad Med. 1997;72(8):715–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/­performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 Suppl):S63–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health ­professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the ­evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dent JA, Harden RM, editors. A practical guide for medical ­teachers. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Amin Z, Seng CY, Eng KH. Practical guide to medical student assessment. Singapore: World Scientific; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, editors. International handbook of research in medical education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Downing SM, Yudkowsky R. Introduction to assessment in the health professions. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Norcini J, Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE. Evaluation challenges in the era of outcome-based education. In: Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008. p. 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Newble D. Assessment: Introduction. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, editors. International handbook of research in medical education, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2002. p. 645–6.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Downing SM. Written tests: constructed-response and selected-response formats. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 149–84.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hawkins RE, Swanson DB. Using written examinations to assess medical knowledge and its application. In: Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008. p. 42–59.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Downing SM. Assessment of knowledge with written test forms. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, editors. International handbook of research in medical education, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2002. p. 647–72.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. Written assessments. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, editors. A practical guide for medical teachers. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone; 2005. p. 311–22.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Tekian A, Yudkowsky R. Oral examinations. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 269–86.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Marks M, Humphrey-Murto S. Performance assessment. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, editors. A practical guide for medical teachers. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone; 2005. p. 323–35.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Petrusa ER. Clinical performance assessments. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, editors. International handbook of research in medical education, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2002. p. 673–710.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  58. Harden RM, Gleeson FA. Assessment of clinical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Med Educ. 1979;13:41–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Yudkowsky R. Performance tests. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 217–43.

    Google Scholar 

  60. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB. Simulations in assessment. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 245–68.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Scalese RJ, Issenberg SB. Simulation-based assessment. In: Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008. p. 179–200.

    Google Scholar 

  62. McGaghie WC, Butter J, Kaye M. Observational assessment. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 185–216.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Davis MH, Ponnamperuma GG. Work-based assessment. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, editors. A practical guide for medical teachers. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone; 2005. p. 336–45.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lockyer JM, Clyman SG. Multisource feedback (360-degree evaluation). In: Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008. p. 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Holmboe ES. Practice audit, medical record review, and chart-stimulated recall. In: Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008. p. 60–74.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cunnington J, Southgate L. Relicensure, recertification, and practice-based assessment. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, editors. International handbook of research in medical education, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2002. p. 883–912.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  67. Vukanovic-Criley JM, Criley S, Warde CM, et al. Competency in cardiac examination skills in medical students, trainees, physicians, and faculty: a multicenter study. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(6):610–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Holmboe ES, Davis MH, Carraccio C. Portfolios. In: Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008. p. 86–101.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Davis MH, Ponnamperuma GG. Portfolios, projects and dissertations. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, editors. A practical guide for medical teachers. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone; 2005. p. 346–56.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Tekian A, Yudkowsky R. Assessment portfolios. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 287–304.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Pangaro L, Holmboe ES. Evaluation forms and global rating scales. In: Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008. p. 24–41.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Flin R, Patey R. Non-technical skills for anaesthetists: developing and applying ANTS. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2011;25(2):215–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Stufflebeam DL. Guidelines for developing evaluation checklists: The checklists development checklist (CDC). Western Michigan University: The Evaluation Center Web site. http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/guidelines_cdc.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed 31 Aug 2012.

  74. Bichelmeyer BA. Checklist for formatting checklists. Western Michigan University: The Evaluation Center Web site. http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/cfc.pdf. Published 2003. Accessed 31 Aug 2012.

  75. Yudkowsky R, Downing SM, Tekian A. Standard setting. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 119–48.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Norcini J, Guille R. Combining tests and setting standards. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, editors. International handbook of research in medical education, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2002. p. 811–34.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  77. Norcini J. Standard setting. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, editors. A practical guide for medical teachers. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone; 2005. p. 293–301.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education/American Board of Medical Specialties. Toolbox of assessment methods. http://www.partners.org/Assets/Documents/Graduate-Medical-Education/ToolTable.pdf. Updated 2000. Accessed 27 June 2012.

  79. Duffy FD, Holmboe ES. Competence in improving systems of care through practice-based learning and improvement. In: Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008. p. 149–78.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Bandiera G, Sherbino J, Frank JR, editors. The CanMEDS assessment tools handbook. An introductory guide to assessment methods for the CanMEDS competencies. Ottawa: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Pangaro L. A new vocabulary and other innovations for improving descriptive in-training evaluations. Acad Med. 1999;74(11):1203–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Introduction to the basic log book. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Web site. http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploaded-files/ED-Basic-logbook.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed 31 Aug 2012.

  83. ‘Staged’ models of skills acquisition. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Web site. http://www.umdnj.edu/idsweb/idst5340/models_skills_acquisition.htm. Accessed 31 Aug 2012.

  84. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Hart IR, et al. Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA. 1999;282(9):861–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Fincher RE, Lewis LA. Simulations used to teach clinical skills. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, editors. International Handbook of Research in Medical Education, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2002. p. 499–535.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Collins JP, Harden RM. AMEE education guide no. 13: Real patients, simulated patients and simulators in clinical examinations. Med Teach. 1998;20:508–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Clauser BE, Schuwirth LWT. The use of computers in assessment. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, editors. International handbook of research in medical education, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2002. p. 757–92.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  88. Gaba DM. Crisis resource management and teamwork training in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105(1):3–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Department of Health. An organisation with a memory: report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS. London: The Stationery Office; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Goodman W. The world of civil simulators. Flight Int Mag. 1978;18:435.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Wachtel J, Walton DG. The future of nuclear power plant simulation in the United States. In: Simulation for nuclear reactor technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ressler EK, Armstrong JE, Forsythe G. Military mission rehearsal: from sandtable to virtual reality. In: Tekian A, McGuire CH, McGaghie WC, editors. Innovative simulations for assessing professional competence. Chicago: Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1999. p. 157–74.

    Google Scholar 

  94. N.Y. jet crash called ‘miracle on the Hudson’. msnbc.com Web site. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28678669/ns/us_news-life/t/ny-jet-crash-called-miracle-hudson/. Published 15 Jan 2009. Updated 2009. Accessed 10 June 2012.

  95. Berkenstadt H, Ziv A, Gafni N, Sidi A. Incorporating simulation-based objective structured clinical examination into the Israeli National Board Examination in Anesthesiology. Anesth Analg. 2006;102(3):853–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Borrell-Carrio F, Poveda BF, Seco EM, Castillejo JA, Gonzalez MP, Rodriguez EP. Family physicians’ ability to detect a physical sign (hepatomegaly) from an unannounced standardized patient (incognito SP). Eur J Gen Pract. 2011;17(2):95–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Maiburg BH, Rethans JJ, van Erk IM, Mathus-Vliegen LM, van Ree JW. Fielding incognito standardised patients as ‘known’ patients in a controlled trial in general practice. Med Educ. 2004;38(12):1229–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Gorter SL, Rethans JJ, Scherpbier AJ, et al. How to introduce incognito standardized patients into outpatient clinics of specialists in rheumatology. Med Teach. 2001;23(2):138–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Hodges B, Regehr G, McNaughton N, Tiberius R, Hanson M. OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. Acad Med. 1999;74(10):1129–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Kneebone R, Kidd J, Nestel D, Asvall S, Paraskeva P, Darzi A. An innovative model for teaching and learning clinical procedures. Med Educ. 2002;36(7):628–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Kneebone RL, Kidd J, Nestel D, et al. Blurring the boundaries: scenario-based simulation in a clinical setting. Med Educ. 2005;39(6):580–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Research and Technology, Gordon Center for Research in Medical Education, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 016960 (D-41), Miami, FL, 33101, USA

    Ross J. Scalese MD, FACP

  2. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Suite 5907, Burrard Bldg., Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada

    Rose Hatala MD, MSc

  3. Department of Medicine, St. Paul’s Hospital, 1081 Burrard St., Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada

    Rose Hatala MD, MSc

Authors
  1. Ross J. Scalese MD, FACP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rose Hatala MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ross J. Scalese MD, FACP .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Anesthesiology Otolaryngology, and Structural & Chemical Biology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Adam I. Levine MD

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Samuel DeMaria Jr. MD , Andrew D. Schwartz MD  & Alan J. Sim MD ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Scalese, R.J., Hatala, R. (2013). Competency Assessment. In: Levine, A.I., DeMaria, S., Schwartz, A.D., Sim, A.J. (eds) The Comprehensive Textbook of Healthcare Simulation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5993-4_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5993-4_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5992-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5993-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation