Multistakeholder Assessment of Project-Based Service-Learning in Medical Education: A Comparative Evaluation.

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Advances in Medical Education and Practice Pub Date : 2025-05-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S524693
Shih-Chieh Liao, Yueh-Nu Hung, Chia-Rung Chang, You-Xin Ting
{"title":"Multistakeholder Assessment of Project-Based Service-Learning in Medical Education: A Comparative Evaluation.","authors":"Shih-Chieh Liao, Yueh-Nu Hung, Chia-Rung Chang, You-Xin Ting","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S524693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Traditional single-assessment models in service-learning courses do not facilitate comprehensive assessments of learning outcomes. Effective assessments should incorporate perspectives from multiple stakeholders. The present study developed a service-learning course assessment model that incorporates assessments from multiple stakeholders, compared assessments between stakeholder types, and explored the effects of evaluator-student relationship.</p><p><strong>Participants and methods: </strong>The study recruited 126 students from a service-learning course at China Medical University in 2024. Six different groups of stakeholders, namely peers, teaching assistants, service institutions, primary instructors, group instructors, and final report evaluators, evaluated student performance and learning outcomes. Experts ensured that assessment criteria were relevant and comprehensive. Confirmatory factor and principal component analyses were performed to assess the construct validity. The study used descriptive statistics and performed interrater reliability and correlation analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The six groups of evaluators were mostly consistent in their assessments, which clustered into two distinct factors: individual performance (Factor 1) and team/service performance (Factor 2). Factor 1 comprised evaluations from peers, teaching assistants, primary instructors, and group instructors, emphasizing individual students' attendance, participation, and contribution throughout the course. Factor 2 comprised evaluations from service institutions and final report evaluators, focusing on group-level service outcomes and teamwork effectiveness. These two factors explained a cumulative variance of 77.94%. The study identified 15 correlation coefficients: 8 were significantly positive-indicating agreement within or across factors; 2 were significantly negative-highlighting potential divergences in perspective; and 5 were nonsignificant. The relationship between evaluator and student significantly affected assessment outcomes. For instance, peer assessments were the most variable due to subjective influences such as interpersonal dynamics and collaboration history, whereas group instructor assessments showed the least variability, possibly due to a more outcome-focused evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Assessments by different types of evaluators are relatively consistent, and the evaluator-student relationship influences assessment outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":"16 ","pages":"953-963"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12132647/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S524693","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Traditional single-assessment models in service-learning courses do not facilitate comprehensive assessments of learning outcomes. Effective assessments should incorporate perspectives from multiple stakeholders. The present study developed a service-learning course assessment model that incorporates assessments from multiple stakeholders, compared assessments between stakeholder types, and explored the effects of evaluator-student relationship.

Participants and methods: The study recruited 126 students from a service-learning course at China Medical University in 2024. Six different groups of stakeholders, namely peers, teaching assistants, service institutions, primary instructors, group instructors, and final report evaluators, evaluated student performance and learning outcomes. Experts ensured that assessment criteria were relevant and comprehensive. Confirmatory factor and principal component analyses were performed to assess the construct validity. The study used descriptive statistics and performed interrater reliability and correlation analyses.

Results: The six groups of evaluators were mostly consistent in their assessments, which clustered into two distinct factors: individual performance (Factor 1) and team/service performance (Factor 2). Factor 1 comprised evaluations from peers, teaching assistants, primary instructors, and group instructors, emphasizing individual students' attendance, participation, and contribution throughout the course. Factor 2 comprised evaluations from service institutions and final report evaluators, focusing on group-level service outcomes and teamwork effectiveness. These two factors explained a cumulative variance of 77.94%. The study identified 15 correlation coefficients: 8 were significantly positive-indicating agreement within or across factors; 2 were significantly negative-highlighting potential divergences in perspective; and 5 were nonsignificant. The relationship between evaluator and student significantly affected assessment outcomes. For instance, peer assessments were the most variable due to subjective influences such as interpersonal dynamics and collaboration history, whereas group instructor assessments showed the least variability, possibly due to a more outcome-focused evaluation approach.

Conclusion: Assessments by different types of evaluators are relatively consistent, and the evaluator-student relationship influences assessment outcomes.

基于项目的医学教育服务学习的多利益相关者评估:比较评价。
目的:服务学习课程中传统的单一评估模式不能促进学习成果的全面评估。有效的评估应该包括来自多个利益相关者的观点。本研究建立了一个包含多个利益相关者评价的服务学习课程评价模型,比较了不同利益相关者类型的评价,并探讨了评价者-学生关系的影响。研究对象和方法:该研究于2024年从中国医科大学的服务学习课程中招募了126名学生。六组不同的利益相关者,即同龄人、助教、服务机构、初级教师、小组教师和期末报告评估者,评估了学生的表现和学习成果。专家们确保评估标准具有相关性和全面性。采用验证性因子和主成分分析来评估构念效度。本研究采用描述性统计,并进行了信度和相关分析。结果:六组评估者的评估结果基本一致,主要集中在两个不同的因素上:个人绩效(因素1)和团队/服务绩效(因素2)。因素1包括来自同学、助教、初级教师和小组教师的评估,强调学生个人在整个课程中的出勤、参与和贡献。因子2包括来自服务机构和最终报告评估者的评估,重点是团队层面的服务结果和团队效率。这两个因素解释了77.94%的累积方差。研究确定了15个相关系数:8个为显著正相关,表明因素内部或因素之间的一致性;2个显著负向突出潜在的观点分歧;5个不显著。评估者与学生之间的关系显著影响评估结果。例如,由于主观影响,如人际关系动态和合作历史,同伴评估的变化最大,而小组教师评估的变化最小,可能是由于更注重结果的评估方法。结论:不同类型评价者的评价结果相对一致,评价者与学生的关系影响评价结果。
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
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Advances in Medical Education and Practice EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
189
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信