提示更好的反馈:调查有针对性的表格设计对眼科 CBME 评估中叙述性反馈质量的影响。

IF 3.3 4区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Rachel Curtis, Christine C Moon, Tessa Hanmore, Wilma Hopman, Stephanie Baxter
{"title":"提示更好的反馈:调查有针对性的表格设计对眼科 CBME 评估中叙述性反馈质量的影响。","authors":"Rachel Curtis, Christine C Moon, Tessa Hanmore, Wilma Hopman, Stephanie Baxter","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjo.2024.10.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Competency-based medical education (CBME) requires a variety of assessments evaluating resident performance. Assessment form design may influence narrative feedback quality. To evaluate the effect of including targeted written comment prompts in entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessment forms on the quality of narrative feedback in CBME ophthalmology resident trainee assessments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Transition to discipline (TTD) assessment data from three distinct time periods were anonymized; the first 2 groups contained assessments completed with the original form design, whereas the last group represented assessments completed after the introduction of revised EPA forms. Written feedback was scored using the Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) score. One-way ANOVA and a Tukey post hoc test were used to compare mean QuAL scores of each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-thousand one-hundred and forty-five assessments were analyzed, including 680 Original EPA forms, 322 intermediate forms, and 143 revised forms. QuAL scores significantly increased after revisions were made to the assessment form, with original, intermediate, and revised form mean QuAL scores of 2.14 ± 1.76, 2.77 ± 1.75, and 4.33 ± 1.11; P < 0.001 for all comparisons, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Revising EPA form design to include targeted prompts and examples of evidence-based coaching words to guide written comments results in higher-quality narrative feedback in CBME assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":9606,"journal":{"name":"Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prompting better feedback: investigating the effect of targeted form design on quality of narrative feedback in ophthalmology CBME assessments.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Curtis, Christine C Moon, Tessa Hanmore, Wilma Hopman, Stephanie Baxter\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcjo.2024.10.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Competency-based medical education (CBME) requires a variety of assessments evaluating resident performance. Assessment form design may influence narrative feedback quality. To evaluate the effect of including targeted written comment prompts in entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessment forms on the quality of narrative feedback in CBME ophthalmology resident trainee assessments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Transition to discipline (TTD) assessment data from three distinct time periods were anonymized; the first 2 groups contained assessments completed with the original form design, whereas the last group represented assessments completed after the introduction of revised EPA forms. Written feedback was scored using the Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) score. One-way ANOVA and a Tukey post hoc test were used to compare mean QuAL scores of each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-thousand one-hundred and forty-five assessments were analyzed, including 680 Original EPA forms, 322 intermediate forms, and 143 revised forms. QuAL scores significantly increased after revisions were made to the assessment form, with original, intermediate, and revised form mean QuAL scores of 2.14 ± 1.76, 2.77 ± 1.75, and 4.33 ± 1.11; P < 0.001 for all comparisons, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Revising EPA form design to include targeted prompts and examples of evidence-based coaching words to guide written comments results in higher-quality narrative feedback in CBME assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9606,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2024.10.014\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2024.10.014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:基于能力的医学教育(CBME)要求对住院医师的表现进行各种评估。评估表的设计可能会影响叙述性反馈的质量。目的:评估在委托专业活动(EPA)评估表中加入有针对性的书面评论提示对CBME眼科住院医师培训学员评估叙述性反馈质量的影响:对三个不同时间段的学科过渡(TTD)评估数据进行匿名处理;前两组包含以原始表格设计完成的评估,而最后一组则是在引入修订版EPA表格后完成的评估。书面反馈采用学习评估质量(QuAL)评分。采用单因素方差分析和 Tukey 事后检验来比较各组的平均 QuAL 分数:对 145 份评估进行了分析,其中包括 680 份原始 EPA 表格、322 份中间表格和 143 份修订表格。对评估表进行修订后,QuAL 分数明显提高,原始表、中间表和修订表的平均 QuAL 分数分别为 2.14 ± 1.76、2.77 ± 1.75 和 4.33 ± 1.11;所有比较的 P < 0.001:结论:修改 EPA 表格设计,加入有针对性的提示和循证辅导用语范例,以指导书面评语,可提高 CBME 评估中的叙事反馈质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prompting better feedback: investigating the effect of targeted form design on quality of narrative feedback in ophthalmology CBME assessments.

Objective: Competency-based medical education (CBME) requires a variety of assessments evaluating resident performance. Assessment form design may influence narrative feedback quality. To evaluate the effect of including targeted written comment prompts in entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessment forms on the quality of narrative feedback in CBME ophthalmology resident trainee assessments.

Methods: Transition to discipline (TTD) assessment data from three distinct time periods were anonymized; the first 2 groups contained assessments completed with the original form design, whereas the last group represented assessments completed after the introduction of revised EPA forms. Written feedback was scored using the Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) score. One-way ANOVA and a Tukey post hoc test were used to compare mean QuAL scores of each group.

Results: One-thousand one-hundred and forty-five assessments were analyzed, including 680 Original EPA forms, 322 intermediate forms, and 143 revised forms. QuAL scores significantly increased after revisions were made to the assessment form, with original, intermediate, and revised form mean QuAL scores of 2.14 ± 1.76, 2.77 ± 1.75, and 4.33 ± 1.11; P < 0.001 for all comparisons, respectively.

Conclusions: Revising EPA form design to include targeted prompts and examples of evidence-based coaching words to guide written comments results in higher-quality narrative feedback in CBME assessments.

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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
223
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Official journal of the Canadian Ophthalmological Society. The Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology (CJO) is the official journal of the Canadian Ophthalmological Society and is committed to timely publication of original, peer-reviewed ophthalmology and vision science articles.
×
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