Evaluation in medical education: A topical review of target parameters, data collection tools and confounding factors.

Q1 Medicine
GMS German Medical Science Pub Date : 2015-09-16 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01 DOI:10.3205/000219
Sarah Schiekirka, Markus A Feufel, Christoph Herrmann-Lingen, Tobias Raupach
{"title":"Evaluation in medical education: A topical review of target parameters, data collection tools and confounding factors.","authors":"Sarah Schiekirka,&nbsp;Markus A Feufel,&nbsp;Christoph Herrmann-Lingen,&nbsp;Tobias Raupach","doi":"10.3205/000219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Evaluation is an integral part of education in German medical schools. According to the quality standards set by the German Society for Evaluation, evaluation tools must provide an accurate and fair appraisal of teaching quality. Thus, data collection tools must be highly reliable and valid. This review summarises the current literature on evaluation of medical education with regard to the possible dimensions of teaching quality, the psychometric properties of survey instruments and potential confounding factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Pubmed, PsycINFO and PSYNDEX for literature on evaluation in medical education and included studies published up until June 30, 2011 as well as articles identified in the \"grey literature\". RESULTS are presented as a narrative review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified four dimensions of teaching quality: structure, process, teacher characteristics, and outcome. Student ratings are predominantly used to address the first three dimensions, and a number of reliable tools are available for this purpose. However, potential confounders of student ratings pose a threat to the validity of these instruments. Outcome is usually operationalised in terms of student performance on examinations, but methodological problems may limit the usability of these data for evaluation purposes. In addition, not all examinations at German medical schools meet current quality standards.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The choice of tools for evaluating medical education should be guided by the dimension that is targeted by the evaluation. Likewise, evaluation results can only be interpreted within the context of the construct addressed by the data collection tool that was used as well as its specific confounding factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":39243,"journal":{"name":"GMS German Medical Science","volume":"13 ","pages":"Doc15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4576315/pdf/","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS German Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/000219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Background and objective: Evaluation is an integral part of education in German medical schools. According to the quality standards set by the German Society for Evaluation, evaluation tools must provide an accurate and fair appraisal of teaching quality. Thus, data collection tools must be highly reliable and valid. This review summarises the current literature on evaluation of medical education with regard to the possible dimensions of teaching quality, the psychometric properties of survey instruments and potential confounding factors.

Methods: We searched Pubmed, PsycINFO and PSYNDEX for literature on evaluation in medical education and included studies published up until June 30, 2011 as well as articles identified in the "grey literature". RESULTS are presented as a narrative review.

Results: We identified four dimensions of teaching quality: structure, process, teacher characteristics, and outcome. Student ratings are predominantly used to address the first three dimensions, and a number of reliable tools are available for this purpose. However, potential confounders of student ratings pose a threat to the validity of these instruments. Outcome is usually operationalised in terms of student performance on examinations, but methodological problems may limit the usability of these data for evaluation purposes. In addition, not all examinations at German medical schools meet current quality standards.

Conclusion: The choice of tools for evaluating medical education should be guided by the dimension that is targeted by the evaluation. Likewise, evaluation results can only be interpreted within the context of the construct addressed by the data collection tool that was used as well as its specific confounding factors.

Abstract Image

医学教育评价:目标参数、数据收集工具和混杂因素的专题综述。
背景与目的:评价是德国医学院校教育的重要组成部分。根据德国评估协会制定的质量标准,评估工具必须提供对教学质量的准确和公平的评估。因此,数据收集工具必须是高度可靠和有效的。本文综述了目前医学教育评价的文献,包括教学质量的可能维度、调查工具的心理测量特性和潜在的混杂因素。方法:我们检索Pubmed、PsycINFO和PSYNDEX关于医学教育评价的文献,包括2011年6月30日之前发表的研究以及在“灰色文献”中确定的文章。结果以叙述性回顾的形式呈现。结果:我们确定了教学质量的四个维度:结构、过程、教师特征和结果。学生评分主要用于解决前三个方面的问题,有许多可靠的工具可用于此目的。然而,学生评分的潜在混杂因素对这些工具的有效性构成了威胁。结果通常根据学生在考试中的表现进行操作,但方法问题可能会限制这些数据用于评估目的的可用性。此外,并非所有德国医学院的考试都符合目前的质量标准。结论:医学教育评价工具的选择应以评价的目标维度为指导。同样,评估结果只能在使用的数据收集工具所处理的结构的上下文中解释,以及它的特定混淆因素。
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
GMS German Medical Science
GMS German Medical Science Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
11 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信