Is it possible to introduce an interview to the Korean Medical Licensing Examination to assess professional attributes?: a survey-based observational study

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Seung-Joo Na, Hyerin Roh, K. Chun, K. Park, Do-Hwan Kim
{"title":"Is it possible to introduce an interview to the Korean Medical Licensing Examination to assess professional attributes?: a survey-based observational study","authors":"Seung-Joo Na, Hyerin Roh, K. Chun, K. Park, Do-Hwan Kim","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose This study aimed to gather opinions from medical educators on the possibility of introducing an interview to the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) to assess professional attributes. Specifically following topics were dealt with: the appropriate timing and tool to assess unprofessional conduct; the possiblity of prevention of unprofessional conduct by introducing an interview to the KMLE; and the possibility of implementation of an interview to the KMLE. Methods A cross-sectional study approach based on a survey questionnaire was adopted. We analyzed 104 pieces of news about doctors’ unprofessional conduct to determine the deficient professional attributes. We derived 24 items of unprofessional conduct and developed the questionnaire and surveyed 250 members of the Korean Society of Medical Education 2 times. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation analysis, and Fisher’s exact test were applied to the responses. The answers to the open-ended questions were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results In the survey, 49 members (19.6%) responded. Out of 49, 24 (49.5%) responded in the 2nd survey. To assess unprofessional conduct, there was no dominant timing among basic medical education (BME), KMLE, and continuing professional development (CPD). There was no overwhelming assessment tool among written examination, objective structured clinical examination, practice observation, and interview. Response rates of “impossible” (49.0%) and “possible” (42.9%) suggested an interview of the KMLE prevented unprofessional conduct. In terms of implementation, “impossible” (50.0%) was selected more often than “possible” (33.3%). Conclusion Professional attributes should be assessed by various tools over the period from BME to CPD. Hence, it may be impossible to introduce an interview to assess professional attributes to the KMLE, and a system is needed such as self-regulation by the professional body rather than licensing examination.","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed to gather opinions from medical educators on the possibility of introducing an interview to the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) to assess professional attributes. Specifically following topics were dealt with: the appropriate timing and tool to assess unprofessional conduct; the possiblity of prevention of unprofessional conduct by introducing an interview to the KMLE; and the possibility of implementation of an interview to the KMLE. Methods A cross-sectional study approach based on a survey questionnaire was adopted. We analyzed 104 pieces of news about doctors’ unprofessional conduct to determine the deficient professional attributes. We derived 24 items of unprofessional conduct and developed the questionnaire and surveyed 250 members of the Korean Society of Medical Education 2 times. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation analysis, and Fisher’s exact test were applied to the responses. The answers to the open-ended questions were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results In the survey, 49 members (19.6%) responded. Out of 49, 24 (49.5%) responded in the 2nd survey. To assess unprofessional conduct, there was no dominant timing among basic medical education (BME), KMLE, and continuing professional development (CPD). There was no overwhelming assessment tool among written examination, objective structured clinical examination, practice observation, and interview. Response rates of “impossible” (49.0%) and “possible” (42.9%) suggested an interview of the KMLE prevented unprofessional conduct. In terms of implementation, “impossible” (50.0%) was selected more often than “possible” (33.3%). Conclusion Professional attributes should be assessed by various tools over the period from BME to CPD. Hence, it may be impossible to introduce an interview to assess professional attributes to the KMLE, and a system is needed such as self-regulation by the professional body rather than licensing examination.
是否可以在韩国医学执照考试中引入面试来评估专业属性?:基于调查的观察性研究
目的本研究旨在收集医学教育工作者对在韩国医学执照考试(KMLE)中引入面试以评估专业属性的可能性的意见。具体涉及以下主题:评估不专业行为的适当时机和工具;通过向KMLE介绍面试来防止不专业行为的可能性;以及对KMLE进行面谈的可能性。方法采用横断面调查法。我们分析了104条关于医生不专业行为的新闻,以确定缺乏专业属性。我们得出了24项不专业行为,并编制了问卷,对韩国医学教育学会的250名成员进行了2次调查。描述性统计、交叉表分析和Fisher精确检验被应用于回答。开放式问题的答案采用传统的内容分析法进行分析。结果在调查中,49名成员(19.6%)作出回应。在49人中,有24人(49.5%)在第二次调查中作出了回应。为了评估不专业行为,基础医学教育(BME)、KMLE和持续专业发展(CPD)之间没有占主导地位的时间。在笔试、客观结构化临床检查、实践观察和访谈中,没有压倒性的评估工具。“不可能”(49.0%)和“可能”(42.9%)的回答率表明,对KMLE的采访可以防止不专业的行为。在实施方面,“不可能”(50.0%)的选择频率高于“可能”(33.3%)。因此,可能不可能引入面试来评估KMLE的专业属性,需要一个系统,例如专业机构的自我监管,而不是执照考试。
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
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
×
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