Development and Validation of an Entrustable Professional Activity-Based Assessment Scale for Nurse Practitioners in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Competency-based education is essential for training nurse practitioners (NPs). Although entrustable professional activities (EPAs) have been widely used to assess competency in health professionals, a valid EPA-based assessment scale is required to assess the clinical competencies of NPs in acute care settings. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop and examine the reliability and validity of an EPA-based assessment scale for NPs. METHODS: A psychometric study with a cross-sectional survey was used in this study. The participants included NP instructors as evaluators and novice NPs currently in clinical practice as test takers. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants from among members of the Taiwan Association of Nurse Practitioners. First, five EPA focus groups were used to develop five EPAs using a template and following the suggested steps. Second, a consensus validation was conducted using the Delphi study. Third, content validity was performed through a national study involving 218 novice NPs as test takers and 57 certified clinical NP educators serving as observers to test the EPAs. The Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient were calculated to examine EPA-based assessment scale reliability, and exploratory factor analysis, concurrent validity, and discriminant validity were applied to assess the validity of the EPAs. Finally, the EPA-based assessment scale of NP care for patients with fever was used in data analysis. RESULTS: The final version of the EPA-based assessment scale included a 22-item observable checklist scale designed to evaluate the clinically independent performance (1-5) of nine key NP competencies. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the overall scale was .95. The results revealed that the EPA-based assessment scale addressed two key factors of direct patient-centered care and communication/time management. Factor loadings for each item ranged from .58 to .83, accounting for 70.83% of the total variance in the EPA-based assessment scale. Concurrent validity indicated a high correlation between the developed EPA-based assessment scale and the Ottawa Clinic Assessment Tool ( r = .96, p < .001). The results of the discriminant validity analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between novice and expert NPs ( F = 7.84, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The novel EPA-based assessment scale developed in this study demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity, thereby supporting its application in evaluating the clinical competencies of NPs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".