↓ Skip to main content

Using a Curricular Vision to Define Entrustable Professional Activities for Medical Student Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Using a Curricular Vision to Define Entrustable Professional Activities for Medical Student Assessment
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3264-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen E. Hauer, Christy Boscardin, Tracy B. Fulton, Catherine Lucey, Sandra Oza, Arianne Teherani

Abstract

The new UCSF Bridges Curriculum aims to prepare students to succeed in today's health care system while simultaneously improving it. Curriculum redesign requires assessment strategies that ensure that graduates achieve competence in enduring and emerging skills for clinical practice. To design entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for assessment in a new curriculum and gather evidence of content validity. University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Nineteen medical educators participated; 14 completed both rounds of a Delphi survey. Authors describe 5 steps for defining EPAs that encompass a curricular vision including refining the vision, defining draft EPAs, developing EPAs and assessment strategies, defining competencies and milestones, and mapping milestones to EPAs. A Q-sort activity and Delphi survey involving local medical educators created consensus and prioritization for milestones for each EPA. For 4 EPAs, most milestones had content validity indices (CVIs) of at least 78 %. For 2 EPAs, 2 to 4 milestones did not achieve CVIs of 78 %. We demonstrate a stepwise procedure for developing EPAs that capture essential physician work activities defined by a curricular vision. Structured procedures for soliciting faculty feedback and mapping milestones to EPAs provide content validity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 109 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 13%
Professor 13 12%
Other 12 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 36 32%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 51%
Social Sciences 13 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,057
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,308
of 265,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#76
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.