Abstract: SA-PO0984
Assessing Entrustable Professional Activities in a Nephrology Fellowship Program
Session Information
- Educational Research
October 24, 2026 | Location: Exhibit Hall A, Convention Center
Abstract Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Category: Educational Research
- 1000 Educational Research
Authors
- Argyropoulos, Christos, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
- Israel, Hayley, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
- Katoch, Muskan, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
- Singh, Namita, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
- Teixeira, J. Pedro, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
- Roumelioti, Maria-Eleni, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
Background
Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) are units of observable work by a competent professional. This study field-test 10 EPAs through work-based assessment of renal fellows & evaluated their validity and reliability.
Methods
We assessed 10 EPAs with a 0-5 entrustability scale on ability, integrity, reliability and humility & asked ''can we trust the trainee to execute EPA X without supervision?''. Attendings randomly evaluated one 1st- and one 2nd-year fellow/round for the EPAs at 5 clinical settings 3 times within a year. One 2nd-year fellow evaluated himself on these 10 EPAs at 3 time-points. Herein we report content validity, response process validity, and reliability, using generalizability theory analysis to estimate sources of variance in entrustment level (EL) scores.
Results
Attendings (N=8) did 58 assessments of 10 EPAs on 7 trainees. Panel A(Fig) shows the raw EL scores/EPA for all 3 rounds. Panel B(Fig) shows EL self-evaluation and attending scores/round. Fellow's self-evaluations were lower in the 1st round but later aligned with the attendings' scores. Content validity was demonstrated through the evaluators' qualifications & the mapping of the EPAs to the ACGME Nephrology sub-competencies. Response validity was demonstrated by the 0.54 variance in EL scores due to evaluators (42.6%)(Table). Reliability was demonstrated by the high "true" variance in EL score due to the trainee:0.19(15.4%)(Table).
Conclusion
An assessment tool for competence in Nephrology training was field-tested on 10 EPAs. EPAs in Nephrology ensure that early health professionals can deliver safe patient care rather than simply assuming it.
| C | Variance C | Variability(%) |
| TR | 0.19 | 15.4 |
| EPA | 0.05 | 3.7 |
| EV | 0.54 | 42.6 |
| R | 0.02 | 1.9 |
| TRxEV | 0.11 | 8.7 |
| EPAxEV | 0.06 | 4.8 |
| EPAxR | 0.02 | 1.5 |
| EVxR | 0.09 | 7.1 |
| TRxR | 0.01 | 0.9 |
TR;trainee,R;round,EV;evaluator,C;component