SUMMARY
AbstractThis article reports the correlation between different clinical assessors’ scoring of learners’ clinical competencies in order to exclude any possible extraneous variables with regard to reasons for poor clinical competencies of learners. A university in Gauteng, South Africa provides a learning programme that equips learners with clinical knowledge, skills and values in the assessment, diagnosis, treatment and care of patients presenting at primary health care (PHC) facilities. The researcher observed that, despite additional clinical teaching and guidance, learners still obtained low scores in clinical assessments at completion of the programme. This study sought to determine possible reason(s) for this observation. The objectives were to explore and describe the demographic profile of learners and the correlation between different clinical assessors’ scoring of learners. A purposive convenience sample consisted of learners (n = 34) and clinical assessors (n = 6). Data were collected from learners using a self-administered questionnaire and analysed using a nominal and ordinal scale measurement. Data from clinical assessors were collected using a checklist, which was statistically analysed using a software package. The variables were correlated to determine the nature of the relationship between the different clinical assessors’ scores on the checklist to ensure inter-rater reliability. Findings showed that there was no significant difference in the mean of the scoring of marks between clinical assessors after correlation (p < 0.05). Thus, scoring of marks did not contribute to poor clinical competencies exhibited by learners.OpsommingHierdie artikel beskryf die ondersoek na die korrelasie tussen verskillende kliniese assesseerders se puntetoekenning tydens assessering van leerders se kliniese vaardighede ten einde enige moontlike vreemde veranderlikes met betrekking tot redes vir swak prestasie uit te skakel. ? Universiteit in Gauteng, Suid-Afrika bied ? leerprogram aan wat leerders toerus met kliniese kennis, vaardighede en waardes in die beraming, diagnose, behandeling en sorg van pasiënte in primêre gesondheidsorgfasiliteite (PGS). Die navorser het waargeneem dat, ten spyte van addisionele kliniese onderrig en begeleiding, leerders steeds teen die einde van die program lae punte in kliniese evaluasies behaal het. Die studie het die moontlik rede(s) vir hierdie waarneming ondersoek. Die doel van die studie was om die demografiese profiel van leerders, sowel as die korrelasie van die puntetoekenning deur verskillende kliniese assesseerders, te verken en te beskryf. ? Doelbewuste gerieflikheidsteekproef het uit leerders (n = 34) en kliniese beoordelaars (n = 6) bestaan. Data is versamel deur leerders individueel ? vraelys te laat voltooi. Hierdie data is met behulp van ? nominale en rangorde-skaal geanaliseer. Kliniese assesseerders het ? kontrolelys voltooi en data is met behulp van ? statistiese sagtewarepakket geanaliseer. Die veranderlikes is vergelyk om die aard van die verhouding tussen die verskillende kliniese assesseerders se tellings op die kontrolelys te bepaal. Dit is gedoen om interbeoordeelaarbetroubaarheid te verseker. Resultate het getoon dat daar geen statisties beduidende verskille tussen die gemiddelde puntetoekenning van verskillende kliniese assesseerders bestaan het na korrelasie nie (p < 0.05). Die puntetoekenning het dus nie tot die swak kliniese vaardighede van die leerders bygedra nie.