Assesses competence in continuing education professionals, suggesting improvement in workforce standards.
INTRODUCTION: Continuing education (CE) professionals play a central role in maintaining the integrity, independence, and operational quality of accredited CE programs, yet the workforce lacks standardized mechanisms to demonstrate applied competence in accreditation and data stewardship. METHODS: The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education developed two certificate programs, Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited CE and Data Management in Accredited CE, each culminating in a competency-based, remotely proctored assessment. Assessment development included blueprinting, expert review, pilot testing with novices and CE professionals, classical item analysis, and empirical performance-based standard setting using pilot performance data. Each assessment included scenario-based multiple-choice items and a single open-response item. Reliability and item performance were evaluated in the initial operational cohort. RESULTS: In the first cohort, 118 participants completed the Standards assessment and 76 completed the Data Management assessment. Mean scores were 80.1 (range 29-97) and 84.9 (range 46-99), with 80% and 84% meeting the predetermined passing standard. Internal consistency was high for the Standards assessment (KR-20 0.89) and acceptable for Data Management (KR-20 0.69). Open-response responses showed consistent identification of core problems but greater variability in systems-level planning and communication strategies. Learner feedback was positive, with >80% indicating they would recommend the programs and reported difficulty consistent with applied, judgment-based assessment. DISCUSSION: Early findings provide validity evidence supporting certificate-based assessments as a practical approach to verifying applied competence among CE professionals and may help professionalize the CE workforce by offering defensible, role-specific markers of competence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McMahon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: