Measuring the continuous quality improvement orientation of medical education programs.

IF 1 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Danielle Blouin, Everett V Smith
{"title":"Measuring the continuous quality improvement orientation of medical education programs.","authors":"Danielle Blouin,&nbsp;Everett V Smith","doi":"10.1108/IJHCQA-06-2019-0102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>There is a growing interest in applying continuous quality improvement (CQI) methodologies and tools to medical education contexts. One such tool, the \"Are We Making Progress\" questionnaire from the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award framework, adequately captures the dimensions critical for performance excellence and allows organizations to assess their performance and identify areas for improvement. Its results have been widely validated in business, education, and health care and might be applicable in medical education contexts. The measurement properties of the questionnaire data were analyzed using Rasch modeling to determine if validity evidence, based on Messick's framework, supports the interpretation of results in medical education contexts. Rasch modeling was performed since the questionnaire uses Likert-type scales whose estimates might not be amenable to parametric statistical analyses.</p><p><strong>Design/methodology/approach: </strong>Leaders and teachers at 16 of the 17 Canadian medical schools were invited in 2015-2016 to complete the 40-item questionnaire. Data were analyzed using the ConQuest Rasch calibration program, rating scale model.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>491 faculty members from 11 (69 percent) schools participated. A seven-dimensional, four-point response scale model better fit the data. Overall data fit to model requirements supported the use of person measures with parametric statistics. The structural, content, generalizability, and substantive validity evidence supported the interpretation of results in medical education contexts.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>For the first time, the Baldrige questionnaire results were validated in medical education contexts. Medical education leaders are encouraged to serially use this questionnaire to measure progress on their school's CQI focus.</p>","PeriodicalId":47455,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/IJHCQA-06-2019-0102","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-06-2019-0102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose: There is a growing interest in applying continuous quality improvement (CQI) methodologies and tools to medical education contexts. One such tool, the "Are We Making Progress" questionnaire from the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award framework, adequately captures the dimensions critical for performance excellence and allows organizations to assess their performance and identify areas for improvement. Its results have been widely validated in business, education, and health care and might be applicable in medical education contexts. The measurement properties of the questionnaire data were analyzed using Rasch modeling to determine if validity evidence, based on Messick's framework, supports the interpretation of results in medical education contexts. Rasch modeling was performed since the questionnaire uses Likert-type scales whose estimates might not be amenable to parametric statistical analyses.

Design/methodology/approach: Leaders and teachers at 16 of the 17 Canadian medical schools were invited in 2015-2016 to complete the 40-item questionnaire. Data were analyzed using the ConQuest Rasch calibration program, rating scale model.

Findings: 491 faculty members from 11 (69 percent) schools participated. A seven-dimensional, four-point response scale model better fit the data. Overall data fit to model requirements supported the use of person measures with parametric statistics. The structural, content, generalizability, and substantive validity evidence supported the interpretation of results in medical education contexts.

Originality/value: For the first time, the Baldrige questionnaire results were validated in medical education contexts. Medical education leaders are encouraged to serially use this questionnaire to measure progress on their school's CQI focus.

衡量医学教育项目的持续质量改进取向。
目的:人们对将持续质量改进(CQI)方法和工具应用于医学教育环境越来越感兴趣。其中一个工具,来自Malcolm Baldrige国家质量奖框架的“我们是否取得进展”问卷,充分捕捉了卓越绩效的关键维度,并允许组织评估他们的绩效并确定需要改进的领域。其结果已在商业、教育和卫生保健领域得到广泛验证,并可能适用于医学教育背景。使用Rasch模型分析问卷数据的测量属性,以确定基于Messick框架的效度证据是否支持医学教育背景下结果的解释。由于问卷使用李克特类型的量表,其估计可能不适合参数统计分析,因此进行了Rasch建模。设计/方法/方法:在2015-2016年邀请加拿大17所医学院中的16所的领导和教师完成40项问卷。数据分析采用ConQuest Rasch校准程序,评定量表模型。调查结果:来自11所学校(69%)的491名教师参与了调查。一个七维、四点的反应量表模型更符合数据。总体数据符合模型需求,支持使用具有参数统计的人员度量。结构、内容、概括性和实质效度证据支持在医学教育背景下对结果的解释。原创性/价值:Baldrige问卷调查结果首次在医学教育背景下得到验证。鼓励医学教育领导者连续使用此问卷来衡量其学校CQI重点的进展。
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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: ■Successful quality/continuous improvement projects ■The use of quality tools and models in leadership management development such as the EFQM Excellence Model, Balanced Scorecard, Quality Standards, Managed Care ■Issues relating to process control such as Six Sigma, Leadership, Managing Change and Process Mapping ■Improving patient care through quality related programmes and/or research Articles that use quantitative and qualitative methods are encouraged.
×
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