Context: The implementation of an assessment system may be facilitated by stakeholder agreement that appropriate qualities are being tested. This study investigated the extent to which stakeholders perceived 8 assessment formats (multiple-choice questions, objective structured clinical examination, video, significant event analysis, criterion audit, multi-source feedback, case analysis and patient satisfaction questionnaire) as able to assess varying qualities of doctors training in UK general practice.
Methods: Educationalists, general practice trainers and registrars completed a blueprinting style of exercise to rate the extent to which each evaluation format was perceived to assess each of 8 competencies derived primarily from the General Medical Council document 'Good Medical Practice'.
Results: There were high levels of agreement among stakeholders regarding the perceived qualities tested by the proposed formats (G = 0.82-0.93). Differences were found in participants' perceptions of how well qualities were able to be assessed and in the ability of the respective formats to test each quality. Multi-source feedback (MSF) was expected to assess a wide range of qualities, whereas Probity, Health and Ability to work with colleagues were limited in terms of how well they could be tested by the proposed formats.
Discussion: Awareness of the perceptions of stakeholders should facilitate the development and implementation of workplace-based assessment (WPBA) systems. These data shed light on the acceptability of various formats in a way that will inform further investigation of WPBA formats' validity and feasibility, while also providing evidence on which to base educational efforts regarding the value of each format.