A New Multisource Feedback Tool for Evaluating the Performance of Specialty-Specific Physician Groups: Validity of the Group Monitor Instrument

Elisa Bindels*, Benjamin Boerebach, Mirja van der Meulen, Jeroen Donkers, Myra van den Goor, Albert Scherpbier, Kiki Lombarts, Sylvia Heeneman

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Web of Science)

Abstract

Introduction: Since clinical practice is a group-oriented process, it is crucial to evaluate performance on the group level. The Group Monitor (GM) is a multisource feedback tool that evaluates the performance of specialty-specific physician groups in hospital settings, as perceived by four different rater classes. In this study, we explored the validity of this tool.

Methods: We explored three sources of validity evidence: (1) content, (2) response process, and (3) internal structure. Participants were 254 physicians, 407 staff, 621 peers, and 282 managers of 57 physician groups (in total 479 physicians) from 11 hospitals.

Results: Content was supported by the fact that the items were based on a review of an existing instrument. Pilot rounds resulted in reformulation and reduction of items. Four subscales were identified for all rater classes: Medical practice, Organizational involvement, Professionalism, and Coordination. Physicians and staff had an extra subscale, Communication. However, the results of the generalizability analyses showed that variance in GM scores could mainly be explained by the specific hospital context and the physician group specialty. Optimization studies showed that for reliable GM scores, 3 to 15 evaluations were needed, depending on rater class, hospital context, and specialty.

Discussion: The GM provides valid and reliable feedback on the performance of specialty-specific physician groups. When interpreting feedback, physician groups should be aware that rater classes' perceptions of their group performance are colored by the hospitals' professional culture and/or the specialty.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)168-177
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
Volume39
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Keywords

  • MSF
  • validity
  • HEALTH-CARE
  • RELIABILITY
  • ASSESSMENTS

Cite this