Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education 3/2017

Open Access 01-06-2017 | Eye-Opener

How do small groups make decisions?

A theoretical framework to inform the implementation and study of clinical competency committees

Authors: Saad Chahine, Sayra Cristancho, Jessica Padgett, Lorelei Lingard

Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

In the competency-based medical education (CBME) approach, clinical competency committees are responsible for making decisions about trainees’ competence. However, we currently lack a theoretical model for group decision-making to inform this emerging assessment phenomenon. This paper proposes an organizing framework to study and guide the decision-making processes of clinical competency committees.
This is an explanatory, non-exhaustive review, tailored to identify relevant theoretical and evidence-based papers related to small group decision-making. The search was conducted using Google Scholar, Web of Science, MEDLINE, ERIC, and PsycINFO for relevant literature. Using a thematic analysis, two researchers (SC & JP) met four times between April–June 2016 to consolidate the literature included in this review.
Three theoretical orientations towards group decision-making emerged from the review: schema, constructivist, and social influence. Schema orientations focus on how groups use algorithms for decision-making. Constructivist orientations focus on how groups construct their shared understanding. Social influence orientations focus on how individual members influence the group’s perspective on a decision. Moderators of decision-making relevant to all orientations include: guidelines, stressors, authority, and leadership.
Clinical competency committees are the mechanisms by which groups of clinicians will be in charge of interpreting multiple assessment data points and coming to a shared decision about trainee competence. The way in which these committees make decisions can have huge implications for trainee progression and, ultimately, patient care. Therefore, there is a pressing need to build the science of how such group decision-making works in practice. This synthesis suggests a preliminary organizing framework that can be used in the implementation and study of clinical competency committees.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Nasca TJ, Philibert I, Brigham T. The next GME accreditation system – rationale and benefits. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1051–6.CrossRef Nasca TJ, Philibert I, Brigham T. The next GME accreditation system – rationale and benefits. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1051–6.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Frank JR, Snell LS, ten Cate O, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32:638–45.CrossRef Frank JR, Snell LS, ten Cate O, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32:638–45.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Iobst WF, Sherbino J, ten Cate O, et al. Competency-based medical education in postgraduate medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:651–6.CrossRef Iobst WF, Sherbino J, ten Cate O, et al. Competency-based medical education in postgraduate medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:651–6.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:676–82.CrossRef Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:676–82.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Andolsek K, Padmore J, Hauer K, Holmboe ES. Clinical competency committees. A guidebook for programs. Chicago: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; 2015. Andolsek K, Padmore J, Hauer K, Holmboe ES. Clinical competency committees. A guidebook for programs. Chicago: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; 2015.
6.
go back to reference Colbert CY, Dannefer EF, French JC. Clinical competency committees and assessment: Changing the conversation in graduate medical education. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7:162–5.CrossRef Colbert CY, Dannefer EF, French JC. Clinical competency committees and assessment: Changing the conversation in graduate medical education. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7:162–5.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hauer KE, ten Cate O, Boscardin CK, et al. Ensuring resident competence: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making to inform the work of clinical competency committees. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:156–64.CrossRef Hauer KE, ten Cate O, Boscardin CK, et al. Ensuring resident competence: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making to inform the work of clinical competency committees. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:156–64.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Franks P, Clancy CM, Nutting PA. Gatekeeping revisited – protecting patients from overtreatment. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:424–9.CrossRef Franks P, Clancy CM, Nutting PA. Gatekeeping revisited – protecting patients from overtreatment. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:424–9.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Nagy P. The three roles of assessment: gatekeeping, accountability, and instructional diagnosis. Can J Educ. 2000;25:262–79.CrossRef Nagy P. The three roles of assessment: gatekeeping, accountability, and instructional diagnosis. Can J Educ. 2000;25:262–79.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Promes SB, Wagner MJ. Starting a clinical competency committee. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6:163–4.CrossRef Promes SB, Wagner MJ. Starting a clinical competency committee. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6:163–4.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference French JC, Dannefer EF, Colbert CY. A systematic approach toward building a fully operational clinical competency committee. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:22–7.CrossRef French JC, Dannefer EF, Colbert CY. A systematic approach toward building a fully operational clinical competency committee. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:22–7.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tichter AM, Mulcare MR, Carter WA. Interrater agreement of emergency medicine milestone levels: resident self-evaluation vs clinical competency committee consensus. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:1677–9.CrossRef Tichter AM, Mulcare MR, Carter WA. Interrater agreement of emergency medicine milestone levels: resident self-evaluation vs clinical competency committee consensus. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:1677–9.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hauer KE, Chesluk B, Iobst W, et al. Reviewing residents’ competence. Acad Med. 2015;90:1084–92.CrossRef Hauer KE, Chesluk B, Iobst W, et al. Reviewing residents’ competence. Acad Med. 2015;90:1084–92.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Doty CI, Roppolo LP, Asher S, et al. How do emergency medicine residency programs structure their clinical competency committees? A survey. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22:1351–4.CrossRef Doty CI, Roppolo LP, Asher S, et al. How do emergency medicine residency programs structure their clinical competency committees? A survey. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22:1351–4.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Ketteler ER, Auyang ED, Beard KE, et al. Competency champions in the clinical competency committee: a successful strategy to implement milestone evaluations and competency coaching. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:36–8.CrossRef Ketteler ER, Auyang ED, Beard KE, et al. Competency champions in the clinical competency committee: a successful strategy to implement milestone evaluations and competency coaching. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:36–8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Dhaliwal S, Ayyala RS. Post graduate training program in ophthalmology in India: idealistic vs realistic. J Clin Ophth Res. 2015;3:39–43.CrossRef Dhaliwal S, Ayyala RS. Post graduate training program in ophthalmology in India: idealistic vs realistic. J Clin Ophth Res. 2015;3:39–43.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Swanson RA, Chermack TJ. Theory building in applied disciplines. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2013. Swanson RA, Chermack TJ. Theory building in applied disciplines. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2013.
18.
go back to reference Lynham SA. The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Adv Dev Hum Resour. 2002;4:221–41.CrossRef Lynham SA. The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Adv Dev Hum Resour. 2002;4:221–41.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mann KV. The role of educational theory in continuing medical education: Has it helped us? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004;24(S1):S22–S30.CrossRef Mann KV. The role of educational theory in continuing medical education: Has it helped us? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004;24(S1):S22–S30.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Laidley TL, Braddock CH III. Role of adult learning theory in evaluating and designing strategies for teaching residents in ambulatory settings. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2000;5:43–54.CrossRef Laidley TL, Braddock CH III. Role of adult learning theory in evaluating and designing strategies for teaching residents in ambulatory settings. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2000;5:43–54.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.CrossRef Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Citrome L. The grey literature is far from drab. Int J Clin Pract. 2016;70:790.CrossRef Citrome L. The grey literature is far from drab. Int J Clin Pract. 2016;70:790.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Fiske ST, Linville PW. What does the schema concept buy us? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1980;6:543–57.CrossRef Fiske ST, Linville PW. What does the schema concept buy us? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1980;6:543–57.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Laughlin PR. Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision-making. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2010;14:63–79.CrossRef Laughlin PR. Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision-making. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2010;14:63–79.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Juni MZ, Eckstein MP. Flexible human collective wisdom. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015;41:1588–611.CrossRef Juni MZ, Eckstein MP. Flexible human collective wisdom. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015;41:1588–611.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Bonner BL. Expertise in group problem solving: Recognition, social combination, and performance. Group Dyn. 2004;8:277–90.CrossRef Bonner BL. Expertise in group problem solving: Recognition, social combination, and performance. Group Dyn. 2004;8:277–90.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Rokou E, Kirytopoulos K. A calibrated group decision process. Group Decis Negot. 2014;23:1369–84.CrossRef Rokou E, Kirytopoulos K. A calibrated group decision process. Group Decis Negot. 2014;23:1369–84.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Roth PL, Bobko P. A research agenda for multi-attribute utility analysis in human resource management. Hum Res Manage Rev. 1997;7:341–68. Roth PL, Bobko P. A research agenda for multi-attribute utility analysis in human resource management. Hum Res Manage Rev. 1997;7:341–68.
29.
go back to reference Stasser G. A primer of social decision scheme theory: models of group influence, competitive model-testing, and prospective modeling. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999;80:3–20.CrossRef Stasser G. A primer of social decision scheme theory: models of group influence, competitive model-testing, and prospective modeling. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999;80:3–20.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Tindale RS, Kameda T. Social sharedness’ as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2000;3:123–40.CrossRef Tindale RS, Kameda T. Social sharedness’ as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2000;3:123–40.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Kerr NL, Tindale RS. Group performance and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:623–55.CrossRef Kerr NL, Tindale RS. Group performance and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:623–55.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Orlitzky M, Hirokawa RY. To err is human, to correct for it divine: a meta-analysis of research testing the functional theory of group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Res. 2001;32:313–41.CrossRef Orlitzky M, Hirokawa RY. To err is human, to correct for it divine: a meta-analysis of research testing the functional theory of group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Res. 2001;32:313–41.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Hirokawa RY. Group communication and decision-making performance: a continued test of the functional perspective. Hum Commun Res. 1988;14:487–515.CrossRef Hirokawa RY. Group communication and decision-making performance: a continued test of the functional perspective. Hum Commun Res. 1988;14:487–515.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Hinsz VB, Tindale RS, Vollrath DA. The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol Bull. 1997;121:43–64.CrossRef Hinsz VB, Tindale RS, Vollrath DA. The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol Bull. 1997;121:43–64.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189:194–207.CrossRef Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189:194–207.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Mayer RE. Learners as information processors: legacies and limitations of educational psychology’s second. Educ Psychol. 2011;31:151–61.CrossRef Mayer RE. Learners as information processors: legacies and limitations of educational psychology’s second. Educ Psychol. 2011;31:151–61.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Salas E, Rosen MA, Burke CS, Nicholson D, Howse WR. Markers for enhancing team cognition in complex environments: the power of team performance diagnosis. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2007;78(Supplement 1):B77–B85. Salas E, Rosen MA, Burke CS, Nicholson D, Howse WR. Markers for enhancing team cognition in complex environments: the power of team performance diagnosis. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2007;78(Supplement 1):B77–B85.
38.
go back to reference van Ginkel WP, van Knippenberg D. Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: when and why does it work? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;108:218–29.CrossRef van Ginkel WP, van Knippenberg D. Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: when and why does it work? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;108:218–29.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Schulz-Hardt S, Mojzisch A. How to achieve synergy in group decision making: lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2012;23:305–43.CrossRef Schulz-Hardt S, Mojzisch A. How to achieve synergy in group decision making: lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2012;23:305–43.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Wittenbaum GM, Hollingshead AB, Botero IC. From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Commun Monogr. 2004;71:286–310.CrossRef Wittenbaum GM, Hollingshead AB, Botero IC. From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Commun Monogr. 2004;71:286–310.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Kameda T, Tindale RS. Groups as adaptive devices: human docility and group aggregation mechanisms in evolutionary context. In: Shaller M, Simpson JA, Kenrick, DT, editors. Evolution and social psychology. New York: Psychology Press; 2006. Kameda T, Tindale RS. Groups as adaptive devices: human docility and group aggregation mechanisms in evolutionary context. In: Shaller M, Simpson JA, Kenrick, DT, editors. Evolution and social psychology. New York: Psychology Press; 2006.
42.
go back to reference Rashotte L. Social influence. Blackwell Encycl Soc Psychol. 2007;9:562–3. Rashotte L. Social influence. Blackwell Encycl Soc Psychol. 2007;9:562–3.
43.
go back to reference Back KW. Influence through social communication. J Abnorm Psychol. 1951;46:9–23.CrossRef Back KW. Influence through social communication. J Abnorm Psychol. 1951;46:9–23.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Asch SE. Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr. 1956;70:1–70.CrossRef Asch SE. Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr. 1956;70:1–70.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Bond R, Smith PB. Culture and conformity: a meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:111–37.CrossRef Bond R, Smith PB. Culture and conformity: a meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:111–37.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Janis IL. Groupthink. Psychol Today. 1971;5:43–6, 74–76. Janis IL. Groupthink. Psychol Today. 1971;5:43–6, 74–76.
47.
go back to reference Kameda T, Sugimori S. Psychological entrapment in group decision making: an assigned decision rule and a groupthink phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:282–92.CrossRef Kameda T, Sugimori S. Psychological entrapment in group decision making: an assigned decision rule and a groupthink phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:282–92.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Pavitt C. An interactive input-process-output model of social influence in decision-making groups. Small Group Res. 2014;45:704–30.CrossRef Pavitt C. An interactive input-process-output model of social influence in decision-making groups. Small Group Res. 2014;45:704–30.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Hirokawa R, Poole M. Communication and group decision making, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 1996.CrossRef Hirokawa R, Poole M. Communication and group decision making, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 1996.CrossRef
50.
go back to reference De Dreu CK, West MA. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:1191–201.CrossRef De Dreu CK, West MA. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:1191–201.CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Plott CR, Levine ME. A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. Am Econ Rev. 1978;68:146–60. Plott CR, Levine ME. A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. Am Econ Rev. 1978;68:146–60.
52.
go back to reference Klein G. Streetlights and shadows: searching for the keys to adaptive decision making. Cambridge: MIT; 2011. Klein G. Streetlights and shadows: searching for the keys to adaptive decision making. Cambridge: MIT; 2011.
53.
go back to reference Bonner BL, Sillito SD, Baumann MR. Collective estimation: accuracy, expertise, and extroversion as sources of intra-group influence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;10:121–33.CrossRef Bonner BL, Sillito SD, Baumann MR. Collective estimation: accuracy, expertise, and extroversion as sources of intra-group influence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;10:121–33.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Stasson MF, Kameda T, Davis JH. A model of agenda influences on group decisions. Group Dyn. 1997;1:316–23.CrossRef Stasson MF, Kameda T, Davis JH. A model of agenda influences on group decisions. Group Dyn. 1997;1:316–23.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
How do small groups make decisions?
A theoretical framework to inform the implementation and study of clinical competency committees
Authors
Saad Chahine
Sayra Cristancho
Jessica Padgett
Lorelei Lingard
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Published in
Perspectives on Medical Education / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 2212-2761
Electronic ISSN: 2212-277X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0357-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Perspectives on Medical Education 3/2017 Go to the issue

The Writer’s Craft

Tuning your writing