Developing entrustable professional activities for university teachers in the health professions

Figures & data

Table 1. Level of consensus in the 2-round Delphi study (UMC Utrecht) and the survey (international) for the EPAs for health professions teachers.

	Delphi study round 1 (UMC Utrecht)							Delphi study round 2 (UMC Utrecht)							Survey (International)
	n		Support			Consensus		n		Support			Consensus		n		Support			Consensus
EPAs	Valid	Missing	M	SD	Skewness	% 6–8	Level*	Valid	Missing	M	SD	Skewness	% 6–8	Level*	Valid	Missing	M	SD	Skewness	% 6–8	Level*
Lecturing
Clarity	23	0	6.6	0.8	−0.8	87	H	13	0	6.9	0.9	−2.9	92	H	21	0	6.6	1.3	−0.3	76	H
Relevance	22	1	7.1	0.8	−0.2	100	H	13	0	7.1	0.6	−0.1	100	H	21	0	7.1	1.4	−1.3	86	H
Comprehensiveness	23	0	6.7	1.0	−1.7	91	H	13	0	6.9	0.6	−0.1	100	H	21	0	6.6	1.8	−1.9	76	H
Usefulness	23	0	7.0	0.8	−0.6	96	H	13	0	7.4	0.5	0.5	100	H	21	0	6.6	1.8	−1.9	86	H
Teaching small groups
Clarity	23	0	6.6	1.1	−0.7	83	H	13	0	6.9	0.6	−0.1	100	H	21	0	6.6	1.2	−1.1	86	H
Relevance	23	0	7.3	0.6	−0.5	100	H	13	0	7.0	0.7	0.0	100	H	21	0	7.2	1.0	−1.1	90	H
Comprehensiveness	23	0	6.6	1.2	−1.5	83	H	13	0	6.9	0.7	0.2	100	H	21	0	6.8	1.4	−1.4	86	H
Usefulness	22	1	7.1	1.0	−1.6	96	H	13	0	7.3	0.5	0.9	100	H	21	0	7.0	1.7	−2.1	91	H
Teaching lab classes and skills education
Clarity	22	1	6.7	0.9	−0.3	91	H	13	0	6.9	0.7	−1.6	83	H	19	2	6.5	1.5	−0.6	69	H
Relevance	22	1	7.4	0.7	−0.5	100	H	13	0	7.2	0.4	1.5	100	H	19	2	6.7	1.6	−1.7	84	H
Comprehensiveness	22	1	6.9	0.8	−0.8	91	H	13	0	6.5	1.0	−2.1	85	H	19	2	6.3	1.6	−1.3	84	H
Usefulness	22	1	7.3	0.7	−0.6	100	H	13	0	7.2	0.4	1.5	100	H	19	2	6.8	1.8	−2.2	84	H
Bedside teaching
Clarity	17	6	6.1	1.8	−1.1	76	M	11	2	7.0	0.8	−1.6	91	H	19	2	6.2	2.1	−1.3	74	M
Relevance	17	6	7.1	1.2	−2.6	94	H	11	2	7.5	0.5	0.2	100	H	19	2	7.1	1.2	−0.8	84	H
Comprehensiveness	16	7	5.9	2.1	−0.8	63	M	11	2	6.9	0.8	−1.1	91	H	18	3	5.6	2.2	−0.7	61	M
Usefulness	17	6	7.0	1.2	−2.3	94	H	10	3	7.3	0.5	1.0	100	H	19	2	6.5	2.3	−1.8	84	H
Mentoring and tutoring
Clarity	22	1	6.7	1.2	−1.7	91	H	13	0	7.0	0.6	0.0	100	H	19	2	5.9	1.9	−1.0	63	M
Relevance	22	1	7.0	0.9	−0.8	91	H	13	0	7.1	0.8	−1.5	100	H	19	2	7.5	0.8	−2.0	95	H
Comprehensiveness	22	1	6.7	1.2	−1.9	86	H	13	0	7.0	0.7	0.0	100	H	19	2	6.0	1.9	−0.7	69	M
Usefulness	22	1	7.0	1.0	−1.4	96	H	13	0	7.0	0.9	−0.8	92	H	19	2	6.9	1.9	−2.2	84	H
Supervising (clinical) interns
Clarity	23	0	6.6	1.4	−1.2	74	H	13	0	7.1	0.8	−1.5	92	H	19	2	6.0	1.9	−1.2	69	M
Relevance	23	0	7.3	0.9	−2.3	96	H	13	0	7.4	0.5	0.5	100	H	19	2	7.1	1.3	−1.4	90	H
Comprehensiveness	23	0	6.4	1.4	−1.1	74	H	13	0	7.0	0.6	0.0	100	H	18	3	6.1	2.0	−0.9	67	H
Usefulness	23	0	7.0	1.2	−1.6	87	H	13	0	7.5	0.5	0.2	100	H	19	2	6.7	1.9	−1.9	84	H
Assessing written work of students
Clarity	23	0	7.0	0.7	0.0	100	H	13	0	7.2	0.8	−0.3	100	H	19	2	6.2	1.8	−0.9	69	H
Relevance	23	0	7.4	0.7	−0.6	100	H	13	0	7.2	0.9	−1.3	92	H	19	2	6.5	1.5	−1.2	79	H
Comprehensiveness	23	0	7.0	0.7	−0.1	100	H	13	0	6.9	0.8	0.1	100	H	19	2	6.3	2.1	−1.2	68	M
Usefulness	23	0	7.3	0.6	−0.5	100	H	13	0	7.2	0.8	−0.3	100	H	19	2	6.7	1.8	−2.0	74	H
Designing and developing a course
Clarity	21	2	6.8	0.7	−0.5	95	H	10	3	7.1	0.7	−0.2	100	H	19	2	6.4	2.0	−0.8	74	M
Relevance	21	2	7.4	0.6	−0.3	100	H	13	0	7.4	0.7	−0.6	100	H	19	2	6.9	1.2	−1.9	90	H
Comprehensiveness	21	2	6.6	1.2	−1.6	86	H	13	0	6.5	0.9	−0.6	85	H	19	2	6.1	2.3	−0.9	68	M
Usefulness	23	0	7.6	0.6	−1.0	100	H	13	0	7.6	0.5	−0.5	100	H	19	2	6.8	2.0	−2.2	84	H
Developing and administering tests and establishing results
Clarity	21	2	6.7	1.1	−1.8	95	H	12	1	6.7	0.9	−0.1	92	H	19	2	6.5	2.1	−1.6	79	H
Relevance	21	2	7.2	0.8	−1.2	95	H	13	0	7.3	0.6	−0.3	100	H	19	2	7.2	1.0	−1.3	90	H
Comprehensiveness	21	2	6.7	1.3	−2.3	90	H	13	0	6.9	0.8	0.1	100	H	18	3	6.6	1.9	−2.1	83	H
Usefulness	22	1	7.4	0.8	−1.5	95	H	13	0	7.3	0.6	−0.3	100	H	19	2	7.1	1.6	−3.2	95	H
Assessing (clinical) interns
Clarity	22	1	6.8	0.7	0.3	100	H	Merged with ‘Supervising (clinical) internships’ after round 1 of the local Delphi study.
Relevance	22	1	7.4	0.7	−0.5	100	H
Comprehensiveness	22	1	6.8	0.8	−0.3	95	H
Usefulness	22	1	7.3	0.8	−1.1	96	H

*Level of Agreement: High, Medium, Low according to de Loe’s metric (van der Schaaf and Stokking 2011).

All outcomes that did not meet our criteria for consensus are bold.

van der Schaaf MF, Stokking KM. 2011. Construct validation of content standards for teaching. Scand J Educ Res. 55(3):273–289.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar