Publication

Scientist Training Programme – IACC Marking Criteria (2021)

This document explains the marking criteria for the IACC 2021.

text

About the IACC 2021 marking criteria

This document must be read in conjunction with the IACC 2021 trainee guidance on the NSHCS website and the template for the reflective narrative submission.

To pass the IACC 2021 trainees must satisfy assessors that they demonstrate readiness to practice at the level of a newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist and that there are no concerns relating to safety, particularly patient safety.

Trainees must clearly demonstrate, through critical reflection and in relation to the Academy of Healthcare Sciences (2012) Good Scientific Practice domains (available via this link), that they are fully aware of the limits of their own professional. Trainees must demonstrate an ability to robustly self-regulate for areas where they have yet to achieve competence, to ensure that both professional standards and patient safety are maintained. Trainees should focus the majority of the critically reflective narrative on covering the routine aspects of their role. Trainees must achieve a pass in each of the five GSP domains.

Assessors will use the qualitative criteria below to form a judgement on the quality and persuasiveness of your narrative and interview.  The three criteria: critical reflection, self-advocacy and the evidence base, are designed to assist the panel in forming an overall, evidence-based and holistic judgement regarding your readiness to practise in relation to each of the AHCS (2012) Good Scientific Practice domains and as newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist.  You are advised to check your critical reflective narrative to ensure that it at least meets the ‘Reflective’ criteria in each GSP section of your submission.

The panel interview authenticates your narrative, allows the assessors to probe aspects of your self-advocacy and allows you to clarify aspects of your readiness to practise in each of the five GSP domains. You must achieve a pass in each individual GSP domain. The assessor panel will then determine your overall readiness to practise as a newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist within the context of the ACHS GSP domains (2012).

After consideration of your critical reflective narrative and interview, the panel will recommend a provisional overall a pass or fail judgement on your readiness to practise at the level of a newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist based on the Summary Provisional Judgement criteria section below.

Links to IACC 2021 essential resources

IACC 2021 trainee guidance

Template for the reflective narrative submission

Academy of Healthcare Sciences (2012) Good Scientific Practice

The Academy of Healthcare Science released an updated version of the GSP in April 2021. You are required to use the 2012 version of the GSP guide.

text

Qualitative criteria

Criteria Pass Fail
Critical reflection Critically reflective:
Critically reviews existing knowledge, questions assumptions, values, beliefs and biases underpinning current processes within the context of external points of reference (e.g professional and specialist frameworks, standards, protocols); articulates new perspectives as a result of experience and the consequences of action.Explains and evidences how these direct and inform their practice and choice of alternatives in their practice setting.May critically reflect on emotions or gain insight on the impact of emotions.

Reflective:
Active and careful consideration of existing knowledge; articulates new understanding of knowledge as a result of experiences by attempting to understand, question, or analyse them. Explains and evidences how these direct and inform their practice and choice of alternatives in their practice setting.

May recognise, explore and reflect on emotions and their impact.

Thoughtful action: Makes use of existing knowledge without any attempt to evaluate or question knowledge; demonstrates understanding but does not relate to other experiences, or personal or professional learning.

May recognise emotions but not explore nor consider their impact.

Habitual action: Superficial descriptive writing approach (fact reporting, vague impressions) with little conscious/ deliberate thought or reference to evidence or existing knowledge or experiences; responses are offered without attempting to understand, explain or justify them.

Gives little or no recognition or attention to emotions.

Self-advocacy Critical self-advocacy:
Articulates a critical understanding of the level/extent of their own competence and scope of practise and their ability to self-regulate to ensure professional standards and patient safety.Evidence of an ability to self-regulate and practise safely within these limits.Takes full responsibility for own actions.Shows insight on how they approach applying competencies in new contexts and demonstrates their commitment to continuing professional development to ensure safe practice and patient safety.
Reflective self-advocacy:
Articulates an accurate assessment of the level/extent of their own competence and scope of practise and their ability to self-regulate to ensure professional standards and patient safety.Evidence of some ability to self-regulate and mainly practise safely within these limits.Takes some responsibility for own actions.Shows some understanding of how they approach applying competencies to new contexts and demonstrates their commitment to continuing professional development to ensure safe practice and / or patient safety.
Limited self-advocacy:
Limited or inaccurate understanding of the level/extent of their own competence and scope of practise and their ability to self-regulate to ensure professional standards and patient safety.Limited/superficial ability to self-regulate and ensure safe practise within these limits.Takes limited responsibility for own actions and/or sometimes blames others.Shows limited ability to transfer competencies to new contexts and limited engagement with continuing professional development to ensure safe practice and / or patient safety.
Lacks self-advocacy:
Limited or no evidence of an understanding of their own competence and scope of practise or their ability to self-regulate and practise safely within.Lack of evidence of their ability to self-regulate to ensure professional standards and patient safety within these limitsTakes no responsibility for own actions and / or blames others.Shows limited or no ability to transfer competencies to new contexts and no evidence of their continuing professional development to ensure safe practice and / or patient safety.
Evidence and coherence Evidenced and persuasive:
The statements of fact and reflections are supported by appropriate, sufficient and persuasive evidence drawn from the e-Portfolio supporting.The narrative is logical, coherent, with clearly conveyed meaning and conclusions.
Partially evidenced and coherent:
The statements of fact and reflections are mostly supported by appropriate, or sufficient, or persuasive evidence drawn from the
e-Portfolio.The narrative is logical, and/or coherent, with a clear meaning and/or conclusions.
Limited evidence and coherence:
Some of the statements and/ or reflections are partially supported by limited evidence drawn from the e-Portfolio; and/or the evidence is insufficient, or inappropriate or irrelevant.The narrative is unclear and/or inconsistent, and/or incomplete and may contain unsubstantiated conclusions.
Lacks evidence and coherence:
The statements of fact and/ or reflections are unsupported by evidence drawn from the e-Portfolio; and/or the evidence is insufficient, or inappropriate or irrelevant.The narrative is confusing, and/or inconsistent, and/or incomplete with no clear or supported conclusions.
text

Summary provisional judgement

After consideration of your critical reflective narrative and interview, the panel will recommend a provisional overall a pass or fail judgement on your readiness to practise at the level of a newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist.

This comprises two elements:

  1. You must pass each individual GSP domain and the global statement.
  2. You must pass the overall summary recommendation on your readiness to practise which requires you to pass both of the summary sub-criteria to achieve a provisional pass as ‘ready to practise’.
Overall summary provisional recommendation Pass Fail Assessors’ feedback
GSP 1: Professional Practice
GSP 2:  Scientific Practice
GSP 3: Clinical Practice
GSP 4: Research, Development and Innovation
GSP 5: Clinical Leadership
Global Statement
– This trainee has demonstrated the ability to recognise the scope of their own competence and to self-regulate to ensure safe practise.
– This trainee has demonstrated the ability to ensure appropriate standards and patient safety are maintained at all times.
– This trainee is ready to practise at the level of a newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist.
text

References

Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Kam, F., & Wong, Y. (2008). A four-category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 369-379.

Wald, Hedy S.; Borkan, Jeffrey M.; Taylor, Julie Scott; Anthony, David; Reis, Shmuel P.(2012) Fostering and Evaluating Reflective Capacity in Medical Education: Developing the REFLECT Rubric for Assessing Reflective Writing. The REFLECT (Reflection Evaluation For Learners’ Enhanced Competencies Tool) Rubric. Academic Medicine, 87(1):41-50, January 2012. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31823b55fa.

Last updated on 13th August 2021

  • STP Assessment
  • Document
  • 2021