2447 - FROM AMBIGUITY TO CONFIDENCE: VALIDATING AN ORGANISATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY ENTRUSTABLE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

Session: D01S034 - Learning, Training & Skill Development 2
AUTHORS:
Hess Narelle (Macquarie University ~ Sydney ~ Australia) , Harrison Emma-Jane (University of Queensland ~ Brisbane ~ Australia) , Pritchard Elizabeth (University of Western Australia ~ Perth ~ Australia) , Zadow Amy (Adelaide University ~ Adelaide ~ Australia) , Auton Jaime (Adelaide University ~ Adelaide ~ Australia)
Abstract text:
Introduction: Assessment of psychology trainees is the cornerstone of developing a skilled psychologist workforce. However, assessment of psychology trainees during practicum placements continues to have reported issues of assessment bias and leniency. To overcome these reported assessment issues, medical and allied health professions have adopted Entrustable Professional Activities (EPA) frameworks. EPAs are the specific tasks of the profession that need to be assessed for safe and effective professional practice.


Purpose: To develop and validate an EPA framework for assessing organisational psychology trainees during placements.


Method: A mixed-methods iterative process led by an Australian national expert group was used to identify and refine the EPAs. Seventeen focus groups were conducted with 68 participants: graduates (n = 27), placement supervisors (n = 27), and academic staff (n = 14). Focus group transcripts were thematically analysed to refine the EPAs for the validation survey. A validation survey with 78 placement assessors evaluated each EPA using seven rubric items to determine the content validity, and one qualitative item, which was thematically analysed.


Results: Focus group themes identified revisions to the initial 12 EPAs for language, specificity, and additional task requirements. One EPA was removed, and three additional EPAs were added, yielding 14 EPAs for validation. The survey content validity outcomes resulted in further revisions, with two EPAs being combined and the removal of one EPA that did not meet the required content validity criteria. The final framework comprised 12 attributes, six met the criteria as EPA descriptors, and six were identified as professional attributes required to achieve the EPAs and were reconceptualised in this way for the final proposed assessment framework.


Conclusions: As an initial attempt to define an EPA framework for organisational psychology trainees during placements, this project may serve to inform the design of EPA frameworks for the other professional psychology training programs.