Diversity Audit of Medical School Examination Questions.

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Teaching and Learning in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-08 DOI:10.1080/10401334.2023.2240776
Brahmaputra Marjadi, Neville Chiavaroli, Olanrewaju Sorinola, Veronica Milos Nymberg, Caroline Joyce, Carl Parsons, Anna Ryan
{"title":"Diversity Audit of Medical School Examination Questions.","authors":"Brahmaputra Marjadi, Neville Chiavaroli, Olanrewaju Sorinola, Veronica Milos Nymberg, Caroline Joyce, Carl Parsons, Anna Ryan","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2023.2240776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Phenomenon:</i></b> This article reports the under-researched presentation of demographic, social, and economic diversity in medical school examination questions. <b><i>Approach:</i></b> The present study audited 3,566 pre-clinical and clinical multiple-choice and short answer examination questions in the same year (2018) from three medical schools in two continents to review the diversity of patients portrayed. The audit was based on an extension of Critical Race Theory beyond race and ethnicity to include pertinent social determinants of health. <b><i>Findings:</i></b> Patients were presented in 1,537 (43.1%) of the audited examination questions. Apart from age (89.4%) and binary genders (93.9%), other diversity characteristics were rarely portrayed (ethnicity 7.2%, relationship status 1.9%, sexual identity 1.1%, socio-economic status 0.5%, geographic residence 0.1%, disability 0.1%), or not at all (non-binary genders; residency status; religion/spirituality). <b><i>Insights:</i></b> While presenting excessive and unnecessary patient characteristics in examination questions should be avoided, the absence of many diversity aspects may reduce examination authenticity and defeat the teaching of diversity in medicine. Medical schools should consider a routine audit and reasonable improvement of the diversity features of patients in examination questions to support teaching and learning activities addressing patients' diversity.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"557-565"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2023.2240776","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Phenomenon: This article reports the under-researched presentation of demographic, social, and economic diversity in medical school examination questions. Approach: The present study audited 3,566 pre-clinical and clinical multiple-choice and short answer examination questions in the same year (2018) from three medical schools in two continents to review the diversity of patients portrayed. The audit was based on an extension of Critical Race Theory beyond race and ethnicity to include pertinent social determinants of health. Findings: Patients were presented in 1,537 (43.1%) of the audited examination questions. Apart from age (89.4%) and binary genders (93.9%), other diversity characteristics were rarely portrayed (ethnicity 7.2%, relationship status 1.9%, sexual identity 1.1%, socio-economic status 0.5%, geographic residence 0.1%, disability 0.1%), or not at all (non-binary genders; residency status; religion/spirituality). Insights: While presenting excessive and unnecessary patient characteristics in examination questions should be avoided, the absence of many diversity aspects may reduce examination authenticity and defeat the teaching of diversity in medicine. Medical schools should consider a routine audit and reasonable improvement of the diversity features of patients in examination questions to support teaching and learning activities addressing patients' diversity.

医学院试题多样性审计。
现象:这篇文章报道了医学院试题中人口、社会和经济多样性的表现形式,但对其研究不足。研究方法:本研究审核了同一年(2018年)来自两个大洲三所医学院的3566道临床前和临床选择题和简答题,以审查所描绘的患者多样性。审核基于 "批判性种族理论"(Critical Race Theory)的延伸,从种族和民族延伸到相关的健康社会决定因素。审核结果在审计的试题中,有 1,537 道试题(43.1%)涉及病人。除了年龄(89.4%)和二元性别(93.9%)外,其他多样性特征很少被描述(种族 7.2%、关系状况 1.9%、性身份 1.1%、社会经济状况 0.5%、地理居住地 0.1%、残疾 0.1%),或者根本没有被描述(非二元性别、居住地状况、宗教/灵性)。启示虽然应避免在试题中出现过多和不必要的患者特征,但缺少许多多样性方面的内容可能会降低考试的真实性,并有损医学多样性教学。医学院校应考虑对试题中患者的多样性特征进行常规审核和合理改进,以支持针对患者多样性的教学活动。
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
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Teaching and Learning in Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Teaching and Learning in Medicine ( TLM) is an international, forum for scholarship on teaching and learning in the health professions. Its international scope reflects the common challenge faced by all medical educators: fostering the development of capable, well-rounded, and continuous learners prepared to practice in a complex, high-stakes, and ever-changing clinical environment. TLM''s contributors and readership comprise behavioral scientists and health care practitioners, signaling the value of integrating diverse perspectives into a comprehensive understanding of learning and performance. The journal seeks to provide the theoretical foundations and practical analysis needed for effective educational decision making in such areas as admissions, instructional design and delivery, performance assessment, remediation, technology-assisted instruction, diversity management, and faculty development, among others. TLM''s scope includes all levels of medical education, from premedical to postgraduate and continuing medical education, with articles published in the following categories:
×
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