Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: Development and psychometric validation of a framework for medication-related consultations
Author: Tawab, Rauja Abdel.
ISNI:       0000 0001 3499 8137
Awarding Body: University of Brighton
Current Institution: University of Brighton
Date of Award: 2005
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
This research set out to develop a framework to evaluate the consultation skills of healthcare practitioners undertaking medication-related consultations. A medication-related consultation framework would facilitate the teaching and evaluation of consultation skills and provide a structured format for feedback. Furthermore, it would allow to identify practitioners' learning needs in order to target areas for improvement. The aims of this research were (i) to develop a standardised framework outlining key competencies that should be undertaken in a medicationrelated consultation, (ii) to assess the framework's psychometric properties (validity, reliability), and (iii) to produce guidelines to accompany the framework to facilitate its use and educational impact. To achieve these aims the research was divided into three parts. The first was concerned with the generation of the framework competencies. A critical review of relevant healthcare consultation literature identified key components of patient-centred consultations. The second part involved the testing of the framework's psychometric properties. Face and content validity were explored using a systematic approach to gain views of experts in the field of practitionerpatient consultations, student pharmacists, 'expert patients' and a framework development panel. Discriminant validity, inter and intra-assessor reliability and internal consistency were investigated using data obtained from 150 assessments following the application of the framework by ten assessors to fifteen video-taped simulated consultations of varying quality (good, satisfactory, poor). Any issues which arose as a result of the assessors' use of the framework were collated and addressed in the guidelines developed in part three of the study. The final consultation framework consisted of forty-six key competencies divided into five main sections. These were (A) Introduction (6 items), (B) Data Collection & Problem Identification (15 items), (C) Actions & Solutions (8 items), (D) Closing (3 items), and (E) Consultation Behaviours (14 items). Appropriate adjustments were made following the initial systematic review to improve its face and content validity. Use of the framework resulted in the assessment of the quality of a consultation on three levels; a rating for each individual competency (1 =not at all to 4=very good), a global rating for each section (5-point scale with the middle and extreme points anchored by explicit descriptors) and an overall rating for the entire conSUltation (5-point scale, 1 =poor to 5=very good). Additional space for qualitative comments was provided. The framework was found to discriminate between the rating of consultations at the overall level, i.e. between good, satisfactory and poor (Kruskal Wallis Chi-square=12.5; df=2; p<0.01) and to have moderate to high inter-assessor reliability at this level (rho=0.49 to 0.76). Inter-assessor reliability was low to moderate on the global assessment level (rho=0.26 to 0.68) and consistently low on the individual competency level (rhosO.39). Intra-assessor reliability was found to be generally higher than inter-assessor reliability with high agreements on the overall level (rho=0.59-0.95) and moderate to high on the global level (rho=0.42 to 0.94). The agreements on the individual competency level were inconsistent and ranged from low to high (rhosO.39 to ;::0.70). The framework's internal consistency was found to be acceptable for each section as indicated by moderate to high positive correlations between individual competencies and the corresponding global rating (rho=0.40 to 0.94) and by satisfactory Cronbach's alpha coefficients (ranging from a=0.58 to 0.97). This framework meets key criteria necessary for a formative assessment instrument in that it possesses good face, content and discriminant validity. Whilst the framework demonstrated acceptable inter-assessor and intra-assessor (test-retest) reliability on the overall assessment level and moderate agreement on the global assessment level, this was not the case on the individual competency level. This is acceptable for instruments used for formative assessments where the emphasis is placed on the identification of a practitioner's relative strengths and weaknesses and where specific strategies for improvement are to be fed back to the practitioner. However, in summative assessments where 'pass' or 'fail' decisions about a candidate's performance are made, the possession of high validity and reliability at all assessment levels is important. Further work is needed to test whether the use of the specific guidelines developed to support the framework and additional assessor training improves the framework's reliability when used by multiple assessors. Additionally, further validation studies need to be undertaken.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID:  DOI: Not available