Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information


July 23, 2008



Attending: Rosalyn Scott and Tim Willett, co-chairs; Susan Albright, Mary Pat Aust, Vladmir Goodkovsky, Peter Greene, Valerie Smothers

Agenda Items

1. Review minutes of last meeting

There were no comments on the minutes.

2. Review updated comptency comparison table

Tim explained that he's added two columns - good medical practice and the AACN general patient care competencies. There are many commonalities among the competency frameworks listed. AACN includes a recommended assessment method.

3. Review discussion with technical steering committee

Valerie summarized that they had asked the Technical Steering Committee for their insight in working with IEEE specifications as they are in development. Their advice was to move forward and drive IEEE standards development processes rather than waiting for IEEE to develop something.

4. Review new Competency Framework specification

Valerie summarized that the initial draft of the competency framework specification leverages the IEEE data model but constructs a schema that addresses the working groups' specific concerns. At this point there is a placeholder for a competency map. The definition includes a generic "statement" that can be defined as a Competency Statement, Outcome Criteria, or Assessment Methods. It also includes category and references.

Vladmir commented that it would be nice to have another item, like parent. You need to know the context of the individual competency. Rosalyn added that this speaks to need to identify relationships among competencies. Vladmir stated that we need to define both external and internal relationships. He sees the competency framework as part of learning object framework.

Rosalyn asked about the references. Initially they will refer to the literature. Other types of references, to government regulation, for example, could be important. Susan asked about types of assessment methods. Valerie commented tht this was a free text field, but that they could be further specified within an organization or within the spec. Tim added that someone will always come up with something new. He recommended having Metadata at the root as well.

Tim summarized that competency definition has title, description, and definition. In definition there is statement, category, and reference. He asked if it makes more sense to have a competency definition with a title, description, category, outcome criteria, and assessment method.

Peter suggested roughly staying in sync with IEEE. If there were a schema and adoption, what we have would make sense in their world. Competencies are likely to stretch the boundaries. We may be able to inherit from other fields. The current structure is reasonable. Tim replied that if we keep the current rcd structure, we can add on to that, and restrict if needed. It is a starting point for mapping.

Susan commented that the dental school has a book of competencies. She will see if she can apply our work to that book.

Tim asked the group if anything was missing from the specification. Susan commented that she doesn't know yet. Mary Pat replied that it looks good, but she is not sure. She can't think of anything missing.

Vladmir commented that we will need a measurement scale in competency. He gave Millers pyramid as an example. You could use statement or category for this.

Susan asked Valerie to add Isarin to the working group.

5. Discuss granularity of competencies

6. Open discussion


Action Items

  • No labels