•Place others interests superior to their own

•Avoid doing any harm

•Responds to the needs of society in an acceptable manner

•Honesty, empathy, respect for others, kindness

•reflection

RELIABILITY

Good reliability scores of 0.73-0.96 for mini-cex with 8 mini-cex encounters (Cees P M van der Vleuten & Lambert W T Schuwirth ., 2005) .

G coefficient 0.99 for 10 encounters. (Nair BR.et al .,2008)

 Requires more number of assessors to make it reliable. Margolis et al (2006) concluded that one assessor taking 10 encounters is much less reliable than 10 assessors taking one encounter each (0.39 and 0.83, respectively

Internal consistency reliability good: (Durning SJ et al., 2002 alpha coefficient 0.9)

Interrater reliability: High inter rater variation in results and that training of assessors does not improve the reliability. (Cook DA .,2009)

ACCEPTIBILITY 

 Good satisfaction rate and acceptance by faculty as an effective assessment tool ( Joshi, M. K., Singh, T., & Badyal, D. K.,2017)

The reason that mini-cex are easier to incorporate in daily work without stress as they are not marked as pass or fail (Hayes.K .,2011)

RCOG mini-cex resource suggests that no verdict is associated with this assessment but only constructive feedback

VALIDITY

 

Construct validity: It is able to differentiate clearly between satisfactory, unsatisfactory and superior trainees. ( Holmboe E.S et al ., 2003)

 

Content validity: Kogan et al 2009 reviewed studies from 1965 to 2009 and no study showed content validity.

RCOG mini-cex resource suggests that it assesses the professionalism values of being deferential, well-mannered, self-assured and team player.

 

Criterion validity: Strong correlation between mini cex and monthly evaluation forms and examination scores. (Durning SJ et al ., 2002)

FEASIBILITY

 

Time constraints (Bashir et al 2021 24.5 % of trainees concerned), ( Hayes.K 2011), (Joshi .,2017 22,2% of trainees and 33.3%of faculty)

 

Financial constraints is also an issue for effective implementation.( Hayes.K., 2011)

IMPACT ON LEARNING

 

Yusuf et al 2018 did thematic analysis  which resulted that feedback was found to be useful for 21.43% of the participants, who later did preparation for further mini-cex based on previous feedback.

 

Constructive feedback: Joshi, M. K., Singh, T., & Badyal, D. K. (2017) mentioned that  feedback through mini-cex was constructive was agreed by 9/16  trainees and strongly agree  by 7/16. It was agreed by faculty 6/9 and  strongly agree by 3/9