Development and Initial Validity Evidence for the EvaLeR Tool: Assessing Quality of Emergency Medicine Educational Resources

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Carl Preiksaitis, Rachel Barber, Holly Caretta-Weyer, Sara Krzyzaniak, Teresa M. Chan, Michael A. Gisondi
{"title":"Development and Initial Validity Evidence for the EvaLeR Tool: Assessing Quality of Emergency Medicine Educational Resources","authors":"Carl Preiksaitis,&nbsp;Rachel Barber,&nbsp;Holly Caretta-Weyer,&nbsp;Sara Krzyzaniak,&nbsp;Teresa M. Chan,&nbsp;Michael A. Gisondi","doi":"10.1002/aet2.70063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Emergency medicine (EM) residents increasingly favor digital educational resources over traditional textbooks, with studies showing over 90% regularly using blogs, podcasts, and other online platforms. No standardized instruments exist to comparatively assess quality across both formats, leading to uncertainty in resource selection and potential inconsistencies in learning. We developed the Evaluation of Learning Resources (EvaLeR) tool and gathered initial validity evidence for its use in assessing both textbooks and digital EM educational resources.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This two-phase mixed-methods study developed the EvaLeR tool and gathered validity evidence for its use. Phase 1 comprised a systematic literature review, quality indicator analysis, and expert consultation. In Phase 2, 34 EM faculty evaluated 20 resources (10 textbook chapters, 10 blog posts) using EvaLeR. We collected evidence for reliability, internal consistency, and relationships with other variables.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The EvaLeR tool showed excellent average-measure reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97, 95% CI [0.94–0.99]). We found high internal consistency (Cronbach's <i>α</i> = 0.86) and moderate correlation with educator gestalt ratings (<i>r</i> = 0.53, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). The tool performed similarly across resource types, with no significant differences between textbook chapters (13.34/18, SD 3.41) and digital resources (13.21/18, SD 3.25; <i>p</i> = 0.62).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Initial validity evidence supports the use of EvaLeR for quality assessment of both textbooks and digital EM educational resources. This tool provides educators with an evidence-based approach to resource selection, moving beyond format-based assumptions to focus on content quality, and represents the first standardized instrument for comparative evaluation across educational resource formats.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"9 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aet2.70063","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.70063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Emergency medicine (EM) residents increasingly favor digital educational resources over traditional textbooks, with studies showing over 90% regularly using blogs, podcasts, and other online platforms. No standardized instruments exist to comparatively assess quality across both formats, leading to uncertainty in resource selection and potential inconsistencies in learning. We developed the Evaluation of Learning Resources (EvaLeR) tool and gathered initial validity evidence for its use in assessing both textbooks and digital EM educational resources.

Methods

This two-phase mixed-methods study developed the EvaLeR tool and gathered validity evidence for its use. Phase 1 comprised a systematic literature review, quality indicator analysis, and expert consultation. In Phase 2, 34 EM faculty evaluated 20 resources (10 textbook chapters, 10 blog posts) using EvaLeR. We collected evidence for reliability, internal consistency, and relationships with other variables.

Results

The EvaLeR tool showed excellent average-measure reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97, 95% CI [0.94–0.99]). We found high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.86) and moderate correlation with educator gestalt ratings (r = 0.53, p < 0.001). The tool performed similarly across resource types, with no significant differences between textbook chapters (13.34/18, SD 3.41) and digital resources (13.21/18, SD 3.25; p = 0.62).

Conclusions

Initial validity evidence supports the use of EvaLeR for quality assessment of both textbooks and digital EM educational resources. This tool provides educators with an evidence-based approach to resource selection, moving beyond format-based assumptions to focus on content quality, and represents the first standardized instrument for comparative evaluation across educational resource formats.

Abstract Image

EvaLeR工具的开发和初步有效性证据:评估急诊医学教育资源的质量
急诊医学(EM)的居民越来越喜欢数字教育资源,而不是传统的教科书,研究显示,超过90%的人经常使用博客、播客和其他在线平台。没有标准化的工具来比较评估两种格式的质量,导致资源选择的不确定性和学习中的潜在不一致性。我们开发了学习资源评估(EvaLeR)工具,并收集了用于评估教科书和数字EM教育资源的初步有效性证据。方法本研究采用两阶段混合方法,开发了EvaLeR工具,并为其使用收集了效度证据。第一阶段包括系统的文献综述、质量指标分析和专家咨询。在第二阶段,34名EM教师使用EvaLeR评估了20个资源(10个教科书章节,10个博客文章)。我们收集了可靠性、内部一致性和与其他变量关系的证据。结果EvaLeR工具表现出优异的平均测量信度(类内相关系数= 0.97,95% CI[0.94-0.99])。我们发现内部一致性高(Cronbach's α = 0.86),与教育者完形量表评分有中等相关性(r = 0.53, p < 0.001)。该工具在不同类型的资源中表现相似,在教科书章节(13.34/18,SD 3.41)和数字资源(13.21/18,SD 3.25;p = 0.62)。结论初步效度证据支持使用EvaLeR对教科书和数字EM教育资源进行质量评估。该工具为教育工作者提供了一种基于证据的资源选择方法,超越了基于格式的假设,专注于内容质量,并代表了跨教育资源格式比较评估的第一个标准化工具。
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
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
×
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