The following short report outlines a proposed study designed to evaluate the Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey and its recommended method of administration. This exploratory study seeks to determine if there is a significant difference between two methods of administration, the recommended and validated retrospective pre-test and post-test, and a traditional pre-test and post-test. If a significant difference does exist, this data will provide a means to determine the effect size of that difference. The comparison will be done using repeated measure ANOVA and the subsequent effect size will be evaluated using Cohen's d. As the retrospective design is utilised to evaluate a change in perceived competency, comparison of data from a traditional pre-test with a retrospective pre-test may provide a means for evaluation of the participants' change in understanding of the construct, and thus a more thorough picture of the forces driving changes to scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeffrey B. Jackson (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: