National Evaluation of Specialty Selection Hywel Thomas and Celia Taylor On behalf of the NESS team:...
-
Upload
lester-robinson -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
2
Transcript of National Evaluation of Specialty Selection Hywel Thomas and Celia Taylor On behalf of the NESS team:...
National Evaluation of Specialty Selection
Hywel Thomas and Celia TaylorOn behalf of the NESS team: Ian Davison, Steven Field, Harry Gee, Janet Grant, Andy Malins, Laura Pendleton and Elizabeth Spencer
NESS was commissioned and funded by the Policy Research Programme in the Department of Health (Award number 016 0114). The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Department.
Background
• Specialty selection process is one of the hurdles on the way to consultant/GP principal posts
• 2009: 11,417 applicants for 6,580 entry-level posts (competition ratio 1.7 to 1)
• Selection became increasingly politically sensitive following MTAS
• Highlighted need for evolution and evaluation
Aims and scope of NESS
• To evaluate the first round of selection for specialty training in 2009 against four key criteria:– Acceptability– Fairness– Effectiveness: Validity and Reliability– Value for money
• 13 specialties included in the project• Data collection primarily in 5 deaneries• Did not obtain complete data for every specialty/deanery
Data Sources
Data
Sources
Analytical focus
Profile: applicants, candidates &
assessors
Selection processes and methods The Pilots
Organisation Transferability Risks and benefits
Acceptability Reliability Validity Cost-effectiveness
Fairness
Documents
Academic literature
College and specialty documents and websites
Deanery documents and websites
MMC/DH documents and website
Pilot reports
Surveys
Applicants
Candidates
Assessors
Interviews
Candidates
Assessors
Deanery and College representatives
Outcomes
Score data
1
2
3
4
5
6M
ean
scor
e (1
=Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee; 6
=Str
ongl
y ag
ree)
Candidates (total N=4,027) Assessors (total N=697)
Acceptability: “This selection process was fair”
***
Fairness: Effect of personal characteristics on selection scores
Characteristic Unweighted mean coefficient across specialties
N specialties in which coefficient statistically significant (p<0.05)/5
Male (vs. Female) -0.11 2
Asian (vs. White) -0.31 2
Other Ethnic group (vs. White) -0.35 1
EU trained (vs. UK trained) -0.63 3
Non-EU trained (vs. UK trained) -0.78 3
FY2 post (vs. other post) 0.10 1
Age in years -0.04 4
Postgrad experience in years -0.06 1
R squared 0.29 (range 0.08 to 0.45) N/A
Multiple linear regression analysis by specialtyStandardised scores so comparability across specialtiesN=5 specialties and 1,553 candidates
Effectiveness: Predictive validity of shortlisting scores
Selection Process Uncorrected Corrected
Specialty 1 Deanery F 0.61 0.78
Specialty 2 Deanery A 0.44 0.58
Specialty 5 Deanery B 0.39 0.66
Specialty 5 Deanery E 0.65 0.91
Specialty 6 Deanery A 0.48 0.67
Specialty 7 Deanery A 0.48 N/A
Specialty 7 Deanery E 0.56 N/A
Specialty 9 Deanery A 0.17 N/A
Specialty 9 Deanery B 0.45 0.78
Specialty 9 Deanery E 0.37 0.63
Specialty 10 Deanery F 0.44 0.81
Specialty 13 Deanery F 0.50 0.55
Pearson correlation coefficients: uncorrected and corrected for restriction of range and unreliability of shortlisting scores where possibleN=8 specialties, 13 selection processes and 2,411 candidates
Effectiveness: Reliability • Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha by station
– N=10 specialties, 26 selection processes and 3,505 candidates– Range 0.35 to 0.83– 10/26 (38%) in recommended range 0.7 to 0.9
• Inter-rater reliability: Station-level absolute intra-class correlations– N=4 specialties, 4 selection processes and 395 candidates– Range 0.54 to 0.91– 16/17 (94%) above recommended minimum of 0.7
• Pass-Mark reliability (ignores sub-rules at station-level and only includes candidates attending interview)– N=5 specialties, 7 selection processes and 919 candidates– 12% to 55% of candidates within 1 SEM of appointment cut-off: raises
concerns about fairness– 0% to 20% of candidates within 1 SEM of competency cut-off: raises
concerns about competency
Pass-Mark reliability example
Value for Money• Costing model developed (
http://www.education.bham.ac.uk/research/projects1/dissemination.shtml)• Modified Brogden’s model to estimate cost-benefit:
• Cost-benefit depends on:– Selection process design– Predictive validity– Competition ratio– SD of training performance of candidates– Length of training– Drop-out rate– Number requiring extensions to training– Proportion unsuccessful candidates remaining in NHS
• Cost estimates for ST1 selection: £3.2m for hospital specialties (£800 per post) and £2.4m for GP (£900 per post)
• Cost-benefit estimates - compared to random selection - ranged from £78-97m for hospital specialties and £15-20m for GP
selselranSt
Et
UMxyxy
T
t
St
T
t
SMxyxy
St CEENCZSDRNAZSDRNCB
)](.[]..).(543.0[...11
Summary and implications for selection
• Largest study of specialty selection• Did not obtain complete data – but no evidence of response bias• High acceptability of selection processes by candidates and assessors• Shortlist scores are a good predictor of selection scores• Long-term follow-up is required on predictive validity, particularly to assess
fairness (if scores are predictive then UK-trained candidates will make better trainees but need evidence)
• Inter-rater reliability was good – but potential collusion?• Internal consistency and so pass-mark reliability could be improved: more
stations with 1 assessor?• Only one specialty had a formal standard setting process to identify
competency cut-off• Value for money could only be estimated – but suggests high returns to
investment in selection• Selection has continued to evolve since 2009 e.g. increase in nationally-
coordinated selection processes