Exploring an online clinical competency assessment: an alternative to a traditional in-person assessment for internationally trained physiotherapists
Abstract Background The assessment of clinical competence is crucial for the education and accreditation of health professionals. Although traditional in-person methods, such as objective structured clinical examinations and case-based clinical assessments are widely used, the COVID-19 pandemic prom...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Education |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07559-z |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract Background The assessment of clinical competence is crucial for the education and accreditation of health professionals. Although traditional in-person methods, such as objective structured clinical examinations and case-based clinical assessments are widely used, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the exploration of online formats. This study examined conducting a clinical case-based assessment in an online environment as an alternative to a traditional in-person assessment for evaluating the competence of internationally trained physiotherapists seeking registration in Australia. Methods A single-cohort observational study was conducted, where participants completed both online and in-person assessments. Participants were internationally trained physiotherapists seeking registration in Australia. Participants were scored as pass/fail on 8 domains and for overall outcome. Data were analysed by calculating pass/fail rates, absolute agreement, false negative and positive rates and predictive values. Results There was a 63% agreement in outcomes between each format, with comparable pass rates (online: 54%, in-person: 68%, p = 0.09). The online assessment demonstrated a strong positive predictive value (79%), indicating its potential to regularly predict competence as determined by the in-person assessment. However, online pass rates were significantly lower than in-person pass rates (60% and 78% respectively, p = 0.04) for the domain that scored competency in hands-on skills. Conclusion The findings suggest that online assessment could serve as a viable alternative to the in-person assessment. However, further refinements may be needed to address hands-on skill assessment in online assessments. This study adds to the current evidence base supporting the use of online assessments as an alternative to traditional in-person methods for evaluating clinical competence. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1472-6920 |