Openly accessible

Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE)

Backhouse, Simon, Chiavaroli, NG, Schmid, KL, McKenzie, T, Cochrane, AL, Phillips, G and Jalbert, I 2021, Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE), BMC Medical Education, vol. 21, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02417-6.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Assessing professional competence in optometry – a review of the development and validity of the written component of the competency in optometry examination (COE)
Author(s) Backhouse, SimonORCID iD for Backhouse, Simon orcid.org/0000-0002-5988-1469
Chiavaroli, NG
Schmid, KL
McKenzie, T
Cochrane, AL
Phillips, G
Jalbert, I
Journal name BMC Medical Education
Volume number 21
Article ID 11
Start page 1
End page 11
Total pages 11
Publisher Springer
Place of publication Berlin, Germany
Publication date 2021
ISSN 1472-6920
1472-6920
Keyword(s) Competence
Examination
Optometry
Rasch analysis
Summary Background Credentialing assessment for overseas-educated optometrists seeking registration in Australia and New Zealand is administered by the Optometry Council of Australia and New Zealand. The aim was to review the validation and outcomes of the written components of this exam to demonstrate credentialing meets entry-level competency standards. Methods The Competency in Optometry Examination consists of two written and two clinical parts. Part 1 of the written exam comprises multiple choice questions (MCQ) covering basic and clinical science, while Part 2 has 18 short answer questions (SAQ) examining diagnosis and management. Candidates must pass both written components to progress to the clinical exam. Validity was evaluated using Kane’s framework for scoring (marking criteria, item analysis), generalization (blueprint), extrapolation (standard setting), and implications (outcome, including pass rates). A competency-based blueprint, the Optometry Australia Entry-level Competency Standards for Optometry 2014, guided question selection with the number of items weighted towards key competencies. A standard setting exercise, last conducted in 2017, was used to determine the minimum standard for both written exams. Item response theory (Rasch) was used to analyse exams, produce reliability metrics, apply consistent standards to the results, calibrate difficulty across exams, and score candidates. Results Data is reported on 12 administrations of the written examination since 2014. Of the 193 candidates who sat the exam over the study period, 133 (68.9%) passed and moved on to the practical component. Ninety-one (47.2%) passed both the MCQ and SAQ exams on their first attempt. The MCQ exam has displayed consistently high reliability (reliability index range 0.71 to 0.93, average 0.88) across all 12 administrations. Prior to September 2017 the SAQ had a set cutscore of 50%, and the difficulty of the exam was variable. Since the introduction of Rasch analysis to calibrate difficulty across exams, the reliability and power of the SAQ exam has been consistently high (separation index range 0.82 to 0.93, average 0.86). Conclusions The findings from collective evidence support the validity of the written components (MCQ and SAQ) of the credentialing of the competency of overseas-educated optometrists in Australia and New Zealand.
Language eng
DOI 10.1186/s12909-020-02417-6
Indigenous content off
Field of Research 1117 Public Health and Health Services
1302 Curriculum and Pedagogy
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Free to Read? Yes
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30147327

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: Faculty of Health
School of Medicine
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 53 Abstract Views, 0 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 10:56:11 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.