开发和评估用于儿科急诊医学实习的新型知识评估工具

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Xian Zhao MD, MEd, Aneka Khilnani MS, Debra L. Weiner MD, PhD, Katie A. Donnelly MD, MPH, Christina E. Lindgren MD, Jennifer Chapman MD, Pavan Zaveri MD, MEd, William Benjamin Prince MD, Rosemary Thomas-Mohtat MD
{"title":"开发和评估用于儿科急诊医学实习的新型知识评估工具","authors":"Xian Zhao MD, MEd,&nbsp;Aneka Khilnani MS,&nbsp;Debra L. Weiner MD, PhD,&nbsp;Katie A. Donnelly MD, MPH,&nbsp;Christina E. Lindgren MD,&nbsp;Jennifer Chapman MD,&nbsp;Pavan Zaveri MD, MEd,&nbsp;William Benjamin Prince MD,&nbsp;Rosemary Thomas-Mohtat MD","doi":"10.1002/aet2.10938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This study seeks to determine validity evidence for a newly developed multiple-choice examination (MCE) tool to assess retention and application of medical knowledge of students enrolled in a pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) clerkship.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A team of PEM physicians created a 110-item MCE covering the range of clinical topics in PEM relevant for medical students. The researchers determined examination content using the report of Clerkship Directors in Emergency Medicine and PEM Interest Group of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM). The authors administered the MCE to fourth-year medical students at the end of their PEM rotation from May 2020 to April 2023 at four institutions and then analyzed the examination using four of Messick's five sources of validity evidence: content, response process, internal structure, and relation to other variables.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 158 students took the test. In academic year (AY)20–21, 47 students took the test and scored, on average, 81%. After revision of poor and indeterminate questions, the 111 medical students who took the revised version of the test in AY21–AY23 scored on average 77.3% with a standard deviation of 5.7% with a normal distribution in scores. The revised questions were rated as excellent (10.0%), good (26.4%), fair (34.5%), poor (24.5%), or indeterminate (4.5%) based on test item discrimination. There was a positive correlation between MCE scores and students' clinical evaluations but no correlation between MCE scores and scores that students received on their clinical notes or patient presentations during case conference.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This novel PEM clerkship examination is a reliable test of medical knowledge. Future directions involve evaluating consequences of the MCE and offering the test to medical students in a dedicated PEM rotation at the national level.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and evaluation of a novel knowledge assessment tool for pediatric emergency medicine clerkships\",\"authors\":\"Xian Zhao MD, MEd,&nbsp;Aneka Khilnani MS,&nbsp;Debra L. Weiner MD, PhD,&nbsp;Katie A. Donnelly MD, MPH,&nbsp;Christina E. Lindgren MD,&nbsp;Jennifer Chapman MD,&nbsp;Pavan Zaveri MD, MEd,&nbsp;William Benjamin Prince MD,&nbsp;Rosemary Thomas-Mohtat MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/aet2.10938\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study seeks to determine validity evidence for a newly developed multiple-choice examination (MCE) tool to assess retention and application of medical knowledge of students enrolled in a pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) clerkship.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A team of PEM physicians created a 110-item MCE covering the range of clinical topics in PEM relevant for medical students. The researchers determined examination content using the report of Clerkship Directors in Emergency Medicine and PEM Interest Group of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM). The authors administered the MCE to fourth-year medical students at the end of their PEM rotation from May 2020 to April 2023 at four institutions and then analyzed the examination using four of Messick's five sources of validity evidence: content, response process, internal structure, and relation to other variables.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 158 students took the test. In academic year (AY)20–21, 47 students took the test and scored, on average, 81%. After revision of poor and indeterminate questions, the 111 medical students who took the revised version of the test in AY21–AY23 scored on average 77.3% with a standard deviation of 5.7% with a normal distribution in scores. The revised questions were rated as excellent (10.0%), good (26.4%), fair (34.5%), poor (24.5%), or indeterminate (4.5%) based on test item discrimination. There was a positive correlation between MCE scores and students' clinical evaluations but no correlation between MCE scores and scores that students received on their clinical notes or patient presentations during case conference.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This novel PEM clerkship examination is a reliable test of medical knowledge. Future directions involve evaluating consequences of the MCE and offering the test to medical students in a dedicated PEM rotation at the national level.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AEM Education and Training\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AEM Education and Training\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.10938\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.10938","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

摘要

目的 本研究旨在确定新开发的多选题考试(MCE)工具的有效性,以评估参加儿科急诊医学(PEM)实习的学生对医学知识的掌握和应用情况。 方法 由儿科急诊医学医生组成的一个团队开发了一个包含 110 个项目的 MCE,涵盖了与医学生相关的儿科急诊医学临床课题。研究人员根据急诊医学实习主任和急诊医学学术学会(SAEM)儿科急诊医学兴趣小组的报告确定了考试内容。作者于 2020 年 5 月至 2023 年 4 月在四所院校对四年级医学生在 PEM 轮转结束时进行了 MCE 考试,然后使用梅西克五种有效性证据来源中的四种对考试进行了分析:内容、反应过程、内部结构以及与其他变量的关系。 结果 共有 158 名学生参加了考试。在 20-21 学年,有 47 名学生参加了测试,平均得分率为 81%。在对差题和不确定题进行修订后,111 名医学生在 21-23 学年参加了修订版测试,平均得分率为 77.3%,标准差为 5.7%,得分呈正态分布。根据测试题目的区分度,修订版试题被评为优(10.0%)、良(26.4%)、一般(34.5%)、差(24.5%)或不确定(4.5%)。MCE 分数与学生的临床评价之间呈正相关,但 MCE 分数与学生在临床笔记或病例讨论中的病人陈述所获得的分数之间没有相关性。 结论 这种新颖的 PEM 实习考试是一种可靠的医学知识测试。未来的发展方向包括对 MCE 的后果进行评估,并在全国范围内向专门参加 PEM 轮转的医学生提供该测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development and evaluation of a novel knowledge assessment tool for pediatric emergency medicine clerkships

Objectives

This study seeks to determine validity evidence for a newly developed multiple-choice examination (MCE) tool to assess retention and application of medical knowledge of students enrolled in a pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) clerkship.

Methods

A team of PEM physicians created a 110-item MCE covering the range of clinical topics in PEM relevant for medical students. The researchers determined examination content using the report of Clerkship Directors in Emergency Medicine and PEM Interest Group of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM). The authors administered the MCE to fourth-year medical students at the end of their PEM rotation from May 2020 to April 2023 at four institutions and then analyzed the examination using four of Messick's five sources of validity evidence: content, response process, internal structure, and relation to other variables.

Results

A total of 158 students took the test. In academic year (AY)20–21, 47 students took the test and scored, on average, 81%. After revision of poor and indeterminate questions, the 111 medical students who took the revised version of the test in AY21–AY23 scored on average 77.3% with a standard deviation of 5.7% with a normal distribution in scores. The revised questions were rated as excellent (10.0%), good (26.4%), fair (34.5%), poor (24.5%), or indeterminate (4.5%) based on test item discrimination. There was a positive correlation between MCE scores and students' clinical evaluations but no correlation between MCE scores and scores that students received on their clinical notes or patient presentations during case conference.

Conclusions

This novel PEM clerkship examination is a reliable test of medical knowledge. Future directions involve evaluating consequences of the MCE and offering the test to medical students in a dedicated PEM rotation at the national level.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信