Effectiveness of a question formulation rubric with second-year medical students: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Jonathan D Eldredge, Melissa A Schiff, Jens O Langsjoen
{"title":"Effectiveness of a question formulation rubric with second-year medical students: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Jonathan D Eldredge,&nbsp;Melissa A Schiff,&nbsp;Jens O Langsjoen","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2023.1529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The FAC (Focus, Amplify, Compose) rubric for assessing medical students' question formulation skills normally accompanies our Evidence Based Practice (EBP) training. The combined training and assessment rubric have improved student scores significantly. How much does the rubric itself contribute to improved student scores? This study sought to measure student improvement using the rubric either with or without a linked 25-minute training session.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomized Controlled Trial. The authors tested the hypothesis that a 25-minute training session combined with use of a rubric would lead to higher scores than a brief explanation of this rubric alone. All 72 participating second-year medical students had a question formulation rubric briefly explained to them following a pre-test. Students in the intervention groups were taught how to formulate EBP questions for 25 minutes using the rubric followed with another 30 minutes of EBP search training. Students in the control group only received the 30 minutes of EBP search training in their small group labs. All 72 students took the post-test in which they formulated a question in response to a clinical vignette. Statistical analysis to test the hypothesis consisted of a two-sample paired t-test to measure between-group differences.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Both the intervention and control groups performed significantly better on the post-test for question formulation skills than on the pre-test. When analyzed by extent of individual improvement between pre- and post-tests using a two-sample paired t-test for between group differences, the control group students receiving only a brief explanation of the rubric performed the same statistically (intervention 37.7 versus 37.4 control) as the intervention group students who received the same brief explanation followed by a 25-minute active learning training session. Thus, the results provided no support of the hypothesis that the extra 25-minute training improved post-test scores. The rubric itself contributed similarly to the intervention groups students' improvement as the combined rubric and training for control group students. This finding could potentially save scarce curricular time.</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>The FAC question formulation rubric and training significantly improves medical students' EBP question quality. The FAC rubric coupled with only a 5-minute explanation can be effective. In a crowded medical school curriculum, the rubric and brief explanation might save valued time for other purposes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"111 1-2","pages":"591-598"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10259616/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1529","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The FAC (Focus, Amplify, Compose) rubric for assessing medical students' question formulation skills normally accompanies our Evidence Based Practice (EBP) training. The combined training and assessment rubric have improved student scores significantly. How much does the rubric itself contribute to improved student scores? This study sought to measure student improvement using the rubric either with or without a linked 25-minute training session.

Methods: Randomized Controlled Trial. The authors tested the hypothesis that a 25-minute training session combined with use of a rubric would lead to higher scores than a brief explanation of this rubric alone. All 72 participating second-year medical students had a question formulation rubric briefly explained to them following a pre-test. Students in the intervention groups were taught how to formulate EBP questions for 25 minutes using the rubric followed with another 30 minutes of EBP search training. Students in the control group only received the 30 minutes of EBP search training in their small group labs. All 72 students took the post-test in which they formulated a question in response to a clinical vignette. Statistical analysis to test the hypothesis consisted of a two-sample paired t-test to measure between-group differences.

Discussion: Both the intervention and control groups performed significantly better on the post-test for question formulation skills than on the pre-test. When analyzed by extent of individual improvement between pre- and post-tests using a two-sample paired t-test for between group differences, the control group students receiving only a brief explanation of the rubric performed the same statistically (intervention 37.7 versus 37.4 control) as the intervention group students who received the same brief explanation followed by a 25-minute active learning training session. Thus, the results provided no support of the hypothesis that the extra 25-minute training improved post-test scores. The rubric itself contributed similarly to the intervention groups students' improvement as the combined rubric and training for control group students. This finding could potentially save scarce curricular time.

Key messages: The FAC question formulation rubric and training significantly improves medical students' EBP question quality. The FAC rubric coupled with only a 5-minute explanation can be effective. In a crowded medical school curriculum, the rubric and brief explanation might save valued time for other purposes.

Abstract Image

二年级医学生问题提法的有效性:一项随机对照试验。
目的:FAC (Focus, Amplify, Compose)标准通常伴随我们的循证实践(Evidence Based Practice, EBP)培训来评估医学生的提问技巧。综合训练和评估方法显著提高了学生的成绩。题目本身对学生成绩的提高有多大贡献?这项研究试图通过有或没有25分钟的训练来衡量学生的进步。方法:随机对照试验。作者测试了一个假设,即25分钟的训练课程结合使用一个标准,会比单独对这个标准进行简短的解释带来更高的分数。所有72名参与测试的二年级医学生在预测试后都得到了一个简短的问题提纲说明。干预组的学生用25分钟的时间学习如何使用题型提出EBP问题,然后再进行30分钟的EBP搜索训练。对照组的学生只在他们的小组实验室里接受了30分钟的EBP搜索训练。所有72名学生都参加了后测,在后测中,他们根据临床小短文提出了一个问题。检验假设的统计分析采用双样本配对t检验来衡量组间差异。讨论:干预组和对照组在问题制定技巧后测上的表现都明显好于前测。当使用双样本配对t检验对组间差异进行前后测试之间的个体改善程度进行分析时,只接受简短解释的对照组学生在统计上表现相同(干预37.7对37.4对照),干预组学生接受了相同的简短解释,然后进行了25分钟的主动学习训练。因此,结果不支持额外的25分钟训练提高测试后分数的假设。题目本身对干预组学生的改善的贡献与对照组学生的综合题目和训练相似。这一发现可能会节省稀缺的课程时间。关键信息:FAC题型和训练显著提高了医学生的EBP题型质量。FAC标题加上5分钟的解释就可以有效。在拥挤的医学院课程中,标题和简短的解释可能会节省宝贵的时间用于其他目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信