Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background The Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) regulates the profession of orthotist/prosthetists in Australia through the establishment, maintenance and application of professional standards, such as competency standards. While portfolios are commonly used to assess professional competency, little research has investigated how reliable these assessments are, or how reliability can be improved. Aim To evaluate how reliable AOPA's competency portfolio assessment is and examine causes of variation to improve reliability. Method Overseas trained practitioners wishing to have their qualifications and experience recognised by AOPA submitted a portfolio for assessment. Portfolios were randomly assigned to two independent assessors who determined whether the applicant's portfolio demonstrates competency against each of the 68 AOPA Competency Standards (2014) and recorded their determination as “satisfied” or “not satisfied”. An administrator collated the independent evaluations and identified any points of disagreement for discussion at a consensus meeting. To quantify interassessor reliability, the Kappa statistic was used for each of the 68 competency standards. To better understand the reasons for disagreement, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each assessor. Results Results from this study show high rates of agreement between assessors upon independent assessment. Points of disagreement were commonly resolved during the consensus meeting between assessors, disagreement was rare. The standards which experienced the highest rates of disagreement were identified. Discussion and Conclusion Evidence based standards should be supported by evidence-based processes. Competency assessment via a portfolio of evidence can be conducted and assessed by two assessors with high levels of agreement. Factors that may increase the reliability of the assessment include; appropriate assessor training, the presence of a consensus meeting and clear standards. There are opportunities to further improve the clarity of standards identified as having the lowest level of agreement.
Background The Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) regulates the profession of orthotist/prosthetists in Australia through the establishment, maintenance and application of professional standards, such as competency standards. While portfolios are commonly used to assess professional competency, little research has investigated how reliable these assessments are, or how reliability can be improved. Aim To evaluate how reliable AOPA's competency portfolio assessment is and examine causes of variation to improve reliability. Method Overseas trained practitioners wishing to have their qualifications and experience recognised by AOPA submitted a portfolio for assessment. Portfolios were randomly assigned to two independent assessors who determined whether the applicant's portfolio demonstrates competency against each of the 68 AOPA Competency Standards (2014) and recorded their determination as “satisfied” or “not satisfied”. An administrator collated the independent evaluations and identified any points of disagreement for discussion at a consensus meeting. To quantify interassessor reliability, the Kappa statistic was used for each of the 68 competency standards. To better understand the reasons for disagreement, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each assessor. Results Results from this study show high rates of agreement between assessors upon independent assessment. Points of disagreement were commonly resolved during the consensus meeting between assessors, disagreement was rare. The standards which experienced the highest rates of disagreement were identified. Discussion and Conclusion Evidence based standards should be supported by evidence-based processes. Competency assessment via a portfolio of evidence can be conducted and assessed by two assessors with high levels of agreement. Factors that may increase the reliability of the assessment include; appropriate assessor training, the presence of a consensus meeting and clear standards. There are opportunities to further improve the clarity of standards identified as having the lowest level of agreement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.