What Factors Influence General Practice Specialist Trainees' Engagement with Their E-portfolio?

Overview

Journal MedEdPublish (2016)

Specialty Health Services

Date 2023 Dec 11

PMID 38074559

Authors

Jonathan Rouse

Christopher Green

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. E-portfolio is the primary strategy for the development and assessment of general practice trainees. Literature indicates that trainees often resist engaging fully, undermining its validity in assessing trainee competence and performance. To identify and explore conditions influencing engagement with e-portfolio within a local training programme. A constructivist grounded theory design was used to conceptualise the factors that influence trainee engagement. Twelve semi-structured trainee interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded. Aided by Nvivo Pro version 11, initial codes were developed, revised and raised to focused codes. Through constant comparison, diagramming and memo-writing, theoretical categories were generated. Data analysis conceptualised a theory of engagement incorporating three conceptual categories: "Conceptualising the e-portfolio", "Developing and maintaining trust" in e-portfolio and its processes and "Deciding upon investment worth". Decisions to invest personal resources in e-portfolio engagement depended upon trainees' appraisal of its personal worth and value. E-portfolio valuation was contingent upon trainees' conceptualisation of its purpose, and the trustworthiness of the learning and assessment processes prescribed by its structure. This has implications for trainees, supervisors, and training programmes related to implementation and ownership of e-portfolio, and the credibility and transparency of its role in the assessment of professional performance.

References

Pitts J, Coles C, Thomas P . Educational portfolios in the assessment of general practice trainers: reliability of assessors. Med Educ. 1999; 33(7):515-20. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00445.x. View

Driessen E, van Tartwijk J, van der Vleuten C, Wass V . Portfolios in medical education: why do they meet with mixed success? A systematic review. Med Educ. 2007; 41(12):1224-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02944.x. View

Archer R, Elder W, Hustedde C, Milam A, Joyce J . The theory of planned behaviour in medical education: a model for integrating professionalism training. Med Educ. 2008; 42(8):771-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03130.x. View

Osborne P, Bal B . Registrar feedback on 'Formative assessments in medical education'. Br J Gen Pract. 2013; 63(612):347-8. PMC: 3693783. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X669121. View

Green C . Relative distancing: a grounded theory of how learners negotiate the interprofessional. J Interprof Care. 2012; 27(1):34-42. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2012.720313. View

Wilkinson J, Crossley J, Wragg A, Mills P, Cowan G, Wade W . Implementing workplace-based assessment across the medical specialties in the United Kingdom. Med Educ. 2008; 42(4):364-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03010.x. View

Roberts C, Newble D, ORourke A . Portfolio-based assessments in medical education: are they valid and reliable for summative purposes?. Med Educ. 2002; 36(10):899-900. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01288.x. View

Grant A, Kinnersley P, Metcalf E, Pill R, Houston H . Students' views of reflective learning techniques: an efficacy study at a UK medical school. Med Educ. 2006; 40(4):379-88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02415.x. View

King A . A trainee's guide to surviving ePortfolio. Clin Med (Lond). 2013; 13(4):367-9. PMC: 4954303. DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.13-4-367. View

10.

Palinkas L, Horwitz S, Green C, Wisdom J, Duan N, Hoagwood K . Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2013; 42(5):533-44. PMC: 4012002. DOI: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y. View

11.

Ross S, Maclachlan A, Cleland J . Students' attitudes towards the introduction of a Personal and Professional Development portfolio: potential barriers and facilitators. BMC Med Educ. 2009; 9:69. PMC: 2790436. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-9-69. View

12.

Driessen E, van Tartwijk J, Overeem K, Vermunt J, van der Vleuten C . Conditions for successful reflective use of portfolios in undergraduate medical education. Med Educ. 2005; 39(12):1230-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02337.x. View

13.

Rimmer A . Health Education England asks doctors for input on ARCPs. BMJ. 2017; 358:j3868. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3868. View

14.

Snadden D . Portfolios--attempting to measure the unmeasurable?. Med Educ. 1999; 33(7):478-9. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00446.x. View

15.

Rughani A . Workplace-based assessment and the art of performance. Br J Gen Pract. 2008; 58(553):582-4. PMC: 2486388. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp08X319783. View

16.

Hrisos S, Illing J, Burford B . Portfolio learning for foundation doctors: early feedback on its use in the clinical workplace. Med Educ. 2008; 42(2):214-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02960.x. View

17.

Snadden D, Thomas M . Portfolio learning in general practice vocational training--does it work?. Med Educ. 1998; 32(4):401-6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00245.x. View

18.

Goodyear H, Wall D, Bindal T . Annual review of competence: trainees' perspective. Clin Teach. 2013; 10(6):394-8. DOI: 10.1111/tct.12040. View

19.

Tochel C, Haig A, Hesketh A, Cadzow A, Beggs K, Colthart I . The effectiveness of portfolios for post-graduate assessment and education: BEME Guide No 12. Med Teach. 2009; 31(4):299-318. DOI: 10.1080/01421590902883056. View

20.

Austin C, Braidman I . Support for portfolio in the initial years of the undergraduate medical school curriculum: what do the tutors think?. Med Teach. 2008; 30(3):265-71. DOI: 10.1080/01421590701758673. View