Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
In the competency-based medical education (CBME) approach, clinical competency committees are responsible for making decisions about trainees’ competence. However, we currently lack a theoretical model for group decision-making to inform this emerging assessment phenomenon. This paper proposes an organizing framework to study and guide the decision-making processes of clinical competency committees.
This is an explanatory, non-exhaustive review, tailored to identify relevant theoretical and evidence-based papers related to small group decision-making. The search was conducted using Google Scholar, Web of Science, MEDLINE, ERIC, and PsycINFO for relevant literature. Using a thematic analysis, two researchers (SC & JP) met four times between April–June 2016 to consolidate the literature included in this review.
Three theoretical orientations towards group decision-making emerged from the review: schema, constructivist, and social influence. Schema orientations focus on how groups use algorithms for decision-making. Constructivist orientations focus on how groups construct their shared understanding. Social influence orientations focus on how individual members influence the group’s perspective on a decision. Moderators of decision-making relevant to all orientations include: guidelines, stressors, authority, and leadership.
Clinical competency committees are the mechanisms by which groups of clinicians will be in charge of interpreting multiple assessment data points and coming to a shared decision about trainee competence. The way in which these committees make decisions can have huge implications for trainee progression and, ultimately, patient care. Therefore, there is a pressing need to build the science of how such group decision-making works in practice. This synthesis suggests a preliminary organizing framework that can be used in the implementation and study of clinical competency committees.
Nasca TJ, Philibert I, Brigham T. The next GME accreditation system – rationale and benefits. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1051–6. CrossRef
Frank JR, Snell LS, ten Cate O, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32:638–45. CrossRef
Iobst WF, Sherbino J, ten Cate O, et al. Competency-based medical education in postgraduate medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:651–6. CrossRef
Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:676–82. CrossRef
Andolsek K, Padmore J, Hauer K, Holmboe ES. Clinical competency committees. A guidebook for programs. Chicago: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; 2015.
Colbert CY, Dannefer EF, French JC. Clinical competency committees and assessment: Changing the conversation in graduate medical education. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7:162–5. CrossRef
Hauer KE, ten Cate O, Boscardin CK, et al. Ensuring resident competence: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making to inform the work of clinical competency committees. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:156–64. CrossRef
Franks P, Clancy CM, Nutting PA. Gatekeeping revisited – protecting patients from overtreatment. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:424–9. CrossRef
Nagy P. The three roles of assessment: gatekeeping, accountability, and instructional diagnosis. Can J Educ. 2000;25:262–79. CrossRef
Promes SB, Wagner MJ. Starting a clinical competency committee. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6:163–4. CrossRef
French JC, Dannefer EF, Colbert CY. A systematic approach toward building a fully operational clinical competency committee. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:22–7. CrossRef
Tichter AM, Mulcare MR, Carter WA. Interrater agreement of emergency medicine milestone levels: resident self-evaluation vs clinical competency committee consensus. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:1677–9. CrossRef
Hauer KE, Chesluk B, Iobst W, et al. Reviewing residents’ competence. Acad Med. 2015;90:1084–92. CrossRef
Doty CI, Roppolo LP, Asher S, et al. How do emergency medicine residency programs structure their clinical competency committees? A survey. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22:1351–4. CrossRef
Ketteler ER, Auyang ED, Beard KE, et al. Competency champions in the clinical competency committee: a successful strategy to implement milestone evaluations and competency coaching. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:36–8. CrossRef
Dhaliwal S, Ayyala RS. Post graduate training program in ophthalmology in India: idealistic vs realistic. J Clin Ophth Res. 2015;3:39–43. CrossRef
Swanson RA, Chermack TJ. Theory building in applied disciplines. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2013.
Lynham SA. The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Adv Dev Hum Resour. 2002;4:221–41. CrossRef
Mann KV. The role of educational theory in continuing medical education: Has it helped us? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004;24(S1):S22–S30. CrossRef
Laidley TL, Braddock CH III. Role of adult learning theory in evaluating and designing strategies for teaching residents in ambulatory settings. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2000;5:43–54. CrossRef
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108. CrossRef
Citrome L. The grey literature is far from drab. Int J Clin Pract. 2016;70:790. CrossRef
Fiske ST, Linville PW. What does the schema concept buy us? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1980;6:543–57. CrossRef
Laughlin PR. Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision-making. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2010;14:63–79. CrossRef
Juni MZ, Eckstein MP. Flexible human collective wisdom. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015;41:1588–611. CrossRef
Bonner BL. Expertise in group problem solving: Recognition, social combination, and performance. Group Dyn. 2004;8:277–90. CrossRef
Rokou E, Kirytopoulos K. A calibrated group decision process. Group Decis Negot. 2014;23:1369–84. CrossRef
Roth PL, Bobko P. A research agenda for multi-attribute utility analysis in human resource management. Hum Res Manage Rev. 1997;7:341–68.
Stasser G. A primer of social decision scheme theory: models of group influence, competitive model-testing, and prospective modeling. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999;80:3–20. CrossRef
Tindale RS, Kameda T. Social sharedness’ as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2000;3:123–40. CrossRef
Kerr NL, Tindale RS. Group performance and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:623–55. CrossRef
Orlitzky M, Hirokawa RY. To err is human, to correct for it divine: a meta-analysis of research testing the functional theory of group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Res. 2001;32:313–41. CrossRef
Hirokawa RY. Group communication and decision-making performance: a continued test of the functional perspective. Hum Commun Res. 1988;14:487–515. CrossRef
Hinsz VB, Tindale RS, Vollrath DA. The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol Bull. 1997;121:43–64. CrossRef
Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189:194–207. CrossRef
Mayer RE. Learners as information processors: legacies and limitations of educational psychology’s second. Educ Psychol. 2011;31:151–61. CrossRef
Salas E, Rosen MA, Burke CS, Nicholson D, Howse WR. Markers for enhancing team cognition in complex environments: the power of team performance diagnosis. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2007;78(Supplement 1):B77–B85.
van Ginkel WP, van Knippenberg D. Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: when and why does it work? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;108:218–29. CrossRef
Schulz-Hardt S, Mojzisch A. How to achieve synergy in group decision making: lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2012;23:305–43. CrossRef
Wittenbaum GM, Hollingshead AB, Botero IC. From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Commun Monogr. 2004;71:286–310. CrossRef
Kameda T, Tindale RS. Groups as adaptive devices: human docility and group aggregation mechanisms in evolutionary context. In: Shaller M, Simpson JA, Kenrick, DT, editors. Evolution and social psychology. New York: Psychology Press; 2006.
Rashotte L. Social influence. Blackwell Encycl Soc Psychol. 2007;9:562–3.
Back KW. Influence through social communication. J Abnorm Psychol. 1951;46:9–23. CrossRef
Asch SE. Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr. 1956;70:1–70. CrossRef
Bond R, Smith PB. Culture and conformity: a meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:111–37. CrossRef
Janis IL. Groupthink. Psychol Today. 1971;5:43–6, 74–76.
Kameda T, Sugimori S. Psychological entrapment in group decision making: an assigned decision rule and a groupthink phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:282–92. CrossRef
Pavitt C. An interactive input-process-output model of social influence in decision-making groups. Small Group Res. 2014;45:704–30. CrossRef
Hirokawa R, Poole M. Communication and group decision making, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 1996. CrossRef
De Dreu CK, West MA. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:1191–201. CrossRef
Plott CR, Levine ME. A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. Am Econ Rev. 1978;68:146–60.
Klein G. Streetlights and shadows: searching for the keys to adaptive decision making. Cambridge: MIT; 2011.
Bonner BL, Sillito SD, Baumann MR. Collective estimation: accuracy, expertise, and extroversion as sources of intra-group influence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;10:121–33. CrossRef
Stasson MF, Kameda T, Davis JH. A model of agenda influences on group decisions. Group Dyn. 1997;1:316–23. CrossRef
How do small groups make decisions?
A theoretical framework to inform the implementation and study of clinical competency committees
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum