Cited by 1,162Innovations in Medical EducationCompetency Development and EvaluationMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation

Viewpoint: Competency-Based Postgraduate Training: Can We Bridge the Gap between Theory and Clinical Practice?

ten Cate, Olle, Scheele, Fedde·2007·Academic Medicine

Abstract

The introduction of competency-based postgraduate medical training, as recently stimulated by national governing bodies in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and other countries, is a major advancement, but at the same time it evokes critical issues of curricular implementation. A source of concern is the translation of general competencies into the practice of clinical teaching. The authors observe confusion around the term competency, which may have adverse effects when a teaching and assessment program is to be designed. This article aims to clarify the competency terminology. To connect the ideas behind a competency framework with the work environment of patient care, the authors propose to analyze the critical activities of professional practice and relate these to predetermined competencies. The use of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and statements of awarded responsibility (STARs) may bridge a potential gap between the theory of competency-based education and clinical practice. EPAs reflect those activities that together constitute the profession. Carrying out most of these EPAs requires the possession of several competencies. The authors propose not to go to great lengths to assess competencies as such, in the way they are abstractly defined in competency frameworks but, instead, to focus on the observation of concrete critical clinical activities and to infer the presence of multiple competencies from several observed activities. Residents may then be awarded responsibility for EPAs. This can serve to move toward competency-based training, in which a flexible length of training is possible and the outcome of training becomes more important than its length.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0b013e31805559c7

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ten Cate, O., & Scheele, F.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2007-06
Volume
82
Issue
6
Pages
542-547
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166620155
Cited by
1,162
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 93 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 82 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 31
FWCI
17.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Competency Development and Evaluation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Keywords
competency-based medical education, graduate medical education, entrustable professional activities, competency framework, clinical teaching, competency assessment, theory-practice gap
MeSH terms
Accreditation, Clinical Competence, Competency-Based Education, Diffusion of Innovation, Education, Medical, Graduate, Educational Measurement, Humans, Internship and Residency, Terminology as Topic, Professional Competence, United States

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