ContextCore physician activities of lifelong learning, continuing medical education credit, relicensure, specialty recertification, and clinical competence are linked to the abilities of physicians to assess their own learning needs and choose educational activities that meet these needs.ObjectiveTo determine how accurately physicians self-assess compared with external observations of their competence.Data SourcesThe electronic databases MEDLINE (1966-July 2006), EMBASE (1980-July 2006), CINAHL (1982-July 2006), PsycINFO (1967-July 2006), the Research and Development Resource Base in CME (1978-July 2006), and proprietary search engines were searched using terms related to self-directed learning, self-assessment, and self-reflection.Study SelectionStudies were included if they compared physicians' self-rated assessments with external observations, used quantifiable and replicable measures, included a study population of at least 50% practicing physicians, residents, or similar health professionals, and were conducted in the United Kingdom, Canada, United States, Australia, or New Zealand. Studies were excluded if they were comparisons of self-reports, studies of medical students, assessed physician beliefs about patient status, described the development of self-assessment measures, or were self-assessment programs of specialty societies. Studies conducted in the context of an educational or quality improvement intervention were included only if comparative data were obtained before the intervention.Data ExtractionStudy population, content area and self-assessment domain of the study, methods used to measure the self-assessment of study participants and those used to measure their competence or performance, existence and use of statistical tests, study outcomes, and explanatory comparative data were extracted.Data SynthesisThe search yielded 725 articles, of which 17 met all inclusion criteria. The studies included a wide range of domains, comparisons, measures, and methodological rigor. Of the 20 comparisons between self- and external assessment, 13 demonstrated little, no, or an inverse relationship and 7 demonstrated positive associations. A number of studies found the worst accuracy in self-assessment among physicians who were the least skilled and those who were the most confident. These results are consistent with those found in other professions.ConclusionsWhile suboptimal in quality, the preponderance of evidence suggests that physicians have a limited ability to accurately self-assess. The processes currently used to undertake professional development and evaluate competence may need to focus more on external assessment.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/203258/JRV60012.pdf

Accuracy of Physician Self-assessment Compared With Observed Measures of Competence: A Systematic Review

In this chapter, I provide argument and evidence that the scope of people's ignorance is often invisible to them. This meta-ignorance (or ignorance of ignorance) arises because lack of expertise and knowledge often hides in the realm of the “unknown unknowns” or is disguised by erroneous beliefs and background knowledge that only appear to be sufficient to conclude a right answer. As empirical evidence of meta-ignorance, I describe the Dunning–Kruger effect, in which poor performers in many social and intellectual domains seem largely unaware of just how deficient their expertise is. Their deficits leave them with a double burden—not only does their incomplete and misguided knowledge lead them to make mistakes but those exact same deficits also prevent them from recognizing when they are making mistakes and other people choosing more wisely. I discuss theoretical controversies over the interpretation of this effect and describe how the self-evaluation errors of poor and top performers differ. I also address a vexing question: If self-perceptions of competence so often vary from the truth, what cues are people using to determine whether their conclusions are sound or faulty?

The Dunning-Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one's own ignorance.

Review date: Literature search January 1990 to February 2005 (with update February 2006). Analysis completed January 2007. Background: Health professionals are increasingly expected to identify their own learning needs through a process of ongoing self-assessment. Self-assessment is integral to many appraisal systems and has been espoused as an important aspect of personal professional behaviour by several regulatory bodies and those developing learning outcomes for clinical students. In this review we considered the evidence base on self-assessment since Gordon’s comprehensive review in 1991. The overall aim of the present review was to determine whether specific methods of self-assessment lead to change in learning behaviour or clinical practice. Specific objectives sought evidence for effectiveness of self-assessment interventions to: a. improve perception of learning needs; b. promote change in learning activity; c. improve clinical practice; d. improve patient outcomes. Methods: The methods for this review were developed and refined in a series of workshops with input from an expert BEME systematic reviewer, and followed BEME guidance. Databases searched included Medline, CINAHL, BNI, Embase, EBM Collection, Psychlit, HMIC, ERIC, BEI, TIMElit and RDRB. Papers addressing self-assessment in all professions in clinical practice were included, covering under- and post-graduate education, with outcomes classified using an extended version of Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy. In addition we included outcome measures of accuracy of self-assessment and factors influencing it. 5,798 papers were retrieved, 194 abstracts were identified as potentially relevant and 103 papers coded independently by pairs using an electronic coding sheet adapted from the standard BEME form. This total included 12 papers identified by hand-searches, grey literature, cited references and updating. The identification of a further 12 papers during the writing-up process resulted in a total of 77 papers for final analysis. Results: Although a large number of papers resulted from our original search only a small proportion of these were of sufficient academic rigour to be included in our review. The majority of these focused on judging the accuracy of self-assessment against some external standard, which raises questions about assumed reliability and validity of this ‘gold standard’. No papers were found which satisfied Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy above level 2, or which looked at the association between self-assessment and resulting changes in either clinical practice or patient outcomes. Thus our review was largely unable to answer the specific research questions and provide a solid evidence base for effective self-assessment. Despite this, there was some evidence that the accuracy of self-assessment can be enhanced by feedback, particularly video and verbal, and by providing explicit assessment criteria and benchmarking guidance. There was also some evidence that the least competent are also the least able to self-assess accurately. Our review recommends that these areas merit future systematic research to further our understanding of self-assessment. Conclusion: As in other BEME reviews, the methodological issues emerging from this review indicate a need for more rigorous study designs. In addition, it highlights the need to consider the potential for combining qualitative and quantitative data to further our understanding of how self-assessment can improve learning and professional clinical practice.

The effectiveness of self-assessment on the identification of learner needs, learner activity, and impact on clinical practice: BEME Guide no. 10

Self-assessment in lifelong learning and improving performance in practice : Physician know thyself

Assessment for simulation learning outcomes: a comparison of knowledge and self-reported confidence with observed clinical performance.

Background The intern year is a key time for the acquisition of clinical skills, both procedural and cognitive. We have previously described self-reported confidence and experience for a number of clinical skills, finding high levels of confidence among Australian junior doctors. This has never been correlated with an objective measure of competence.

Aims and hypothesis  We aimed to determine the relationship between self-reported confidence and observed competence for a number of routine, procedural clinical skills.

Methods  A group of 30 junior medical officers in their first postgraduate year (PGY1) was studied. All subjects completed a questionnaire concerning their confidence and experience in the performance of clinical skills. A competency-based assessment instrument concerning 7 common, practical, clinical skills was developed, piloted and refined. All 30 PGY1s then completed an assessment using this instrument. Comparisons were then made between the PGY1s' self-reported levels of confidence and tutors' assessments of their competence.

Results  A broad range of competence levels was revealed by the clinical skills assessments. There was no correlation between the PGY1s' self-ratings of confidence and their measured competencies.

Conclusions  Junior medical officers in PGY1 demonstrate a broad range of competence levels for several common, practical, clinical skills, with some performing at an inadequate level. There is no relationship between their self-reported level of confidence and their formally assessed performance. This observation raises important caveats about the use of self-assessment in this group.

Fiona C Gordon

Papers

Clinical skills in junior medical officers: a comparison of self-reported confidence and observed competence