Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 405

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The relationship between competence and performance: implications for assessing practice performance

Rethans, J‐J, Norcini, J J, Barón‐Maldonado, M, Blackmore, D, Jolly, B C, LaDuca, T, Lew, S, Page, G G, Southgate, L H·2002·Medical Education

Abstract

Objective This paper aims to describe current views of the relationship between competence and performance and to delineate some of the implications of the distinctions between the two areas for the purpose of assessing doctors in practice. Methods During a 2‐day closed session, the authors, using their wide experiences in this domain, defined the problem and the context, discussed the content and set up a new model. This was developed further by e‐mail correspondence over a 6‐month period. Results Competency‐based assessments were defined as measures of what doctors do in testing situations, while performance‐based assessments were defined as measures of what doctors do in practice. The distinction between competency‐based and performance‐based methods leads to a three‐stage model for assessing doctors in practice. The first component of the model proposed is a screening test that would identify doctors at risk. Practitioners who ‘pass’ the screen would move on to a continuous quality improvement process aimed at raising the general level of performance. Practitioners deemed to be at risk would undergo a more detailed assessment process focused on rigorous testing, with poor performers targeted for remediation or removal from practice. Conclusion We propose a new model, designated the Cambridge Model, which extends and refines Miller's pyramid. It inverts his pyramid, focuses exclusively on the top two tiers, and identifies performance as a product of competence, the influences of the individual (e.g. health, relationships), and the influences of the system (e.g. facilities, practice time). The model provides a basis for understanding and designing assessments of practice performance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01316.x

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

See all 405

Metadata

Authors
Rethans, J., Norcini, J. J., Barón‐Maldonado, M., Blackmore, D., Jolly, B. C., LaDuca, T., Lew, S., Page, G. G., & Southgate, L. H.
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-10
Volume
36
Issue
10
Pages
901-909
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W1969299479
Cited by
405
References
12
FWCI
11.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The relationship between competence and performance: implications for assessing practice performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01316.x
The paper
Rethans, J., Norcini, J. J., Barón‐Maldonado, M., Blackmore, D., Jolly, B. C., LaDuca, T., Lew, S., Page, G. G., & Southgate, L. H. (2002). The relationship between competence and performance: implications for assessing practice performance. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01316.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.