基于设计的项目能力评估:一项混合方法研究。

IF 2 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jenna Milosek, Kaylee Eady, Katherine A Moreau
{"title":"基于设计的项目能力评估:一项混合方法研究。","authors":"Jenna Milosek, Kaylee Eady, Katherine A Moreau","doi":"10.1177/23821205251321791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The evaluation of Competence by Design (CBD) residency programs is crucial for enhancing program effectiveness. However, literature on evaluating CBD programs is limited. We conducted a 2-phase mixed-methods study to (a) assess the extent of program evaluation activities in CBD residency programs in Canada, (b) explore reasons for engaging or not engaging in these activities, (c) examine how CBD programs are conducting program evaluations, and (d) identify ways to build capacity for program evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Phase 1 involved surveying 149 program directors from specialty/subspecialty programs that transitioned to CBD between 2017 and 2020. We calculated descriptive statistics for 22 closed-ended survey items. Phase 2 comprised interviews with a subset of program directors from Phase 1. Data analysis followed a 3-step iterative process: data condensation, data display, and drawing and verifying conclusions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In Phase 1, we received 149 responses, with a 33.5% response rate. Of these, 127 (85.2%) indicated their programs engage in evaluation, while 22 (14.8%) do not. Among the 127 programs that engage in evaluation, 29 (22.8%) frequently or always develop evaluation questions, and 23 (18.1%) design evaluation proposals/plans. Reasons for engaging in evaluation included decision-making and stimulating changes in educational practices. Conversely, reasons for not engaging included lack of knowledge, personnel, and funding. In Phase 2, 15 program directors were interviewed. They reported that CBD programs face challenges such as limited resources and buy-in, rely on ad hoc evaluation methods, and use a team-based evaluation format. To enhance evaluation capacities, interviewees suggested (a) developing expertise in program evaluation, (b) acquiring evaluation resources, and (c) advocating for clear evaluation expectations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most CBD residency programs are engaged in program evaluations, but the quality is often questionable. To fully realize the potential of program evaluation, CBD programs need additional resources and support to improve evaluation practices and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":45121,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","volume":"12 ","pages":"23821205251321791"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11833823/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Program Evaluation in Competence by Design: A Mixed-Methods Study.\",\"authors\":\"Jenna Milosek, Kaylee Eady, Katherine A Moreau\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23821205251321791\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The evaluation of Competence by Design (CBD) residency programs is crucial for enhancing program effectiveness. However, literature on evaluating CBD programs is limited. We conducted a 2-phase mixed-methods study to (a) assess the extent of program evaluation activities in CBD residency programs in Canada, (b) explore reasons for engaging or not engaging in these activities, (c) examine how CBD programs are conducting program evaluations, and (d) identify ways to build capacity for program evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Phase 1 involved surveying 149 program directors from specialty/subspecialty programs that transitioned to CBD between 2017 and 2020. We calculated descriptive statistics for 22 closed-ended survey items. Phase 2 comprised interviews with a subset of program directors from Phase 1. Data analysis followed a 3-step iterative process: data condensation, data display, and drawing and verifying conclusions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In Phase 1, we received 149 responses, with a 33.5% response rate. Of these, 127 (85.2%) indicated their programs engage in evaluation, while 22 (14.8%) do not. Among the 127 programs that engage in evaluation, 29 (22.8%) frequently or always develop evaluation questions, and 23 (18.1%) design evaluation proposals/plans. Reasons for engaging in evaluation included decision-making and stimulating changes in educational practices. Conversely, reasons for not engaging included lack of knowledge, personnel, and funding. In Phase 2, 15 program directors were interviewed. They reported that CBD programs face challenges such as limited resources and buy-in, rely on ad hoc evaluation methods, and use a team-based evaluation format. To enhance evaluation capacities, interviewees suggested (a) developing expertise in program evaluation, (b) acquiring evaluation resources, and (c) advocating for clear evaluation expectations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most CBD residency programs are engaged in program evaluations, but the quality is often questionable. To fully realize the potential of program evaluation, CBD programs need additional resources and support to improve evaluation practices and outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"23821205251321791\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11833823/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205251321791\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205251321791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:设计胜任力评估是提高住院医师项目有效性的关键。然而,评价CBD项目的文献是有限的。我们进行了一项两阶段的混合方法研究,以(a)评估加拿大CBD住院医师项目中项目评估活动的程度,(b)探索参与或不参与这些活动的原因,(c)检查CBD项目如何进行项目评估,以及(d)确定建立项目评估能力的方法。方法:第一阶段调查了149名专业/亚专业项目的项目主任,这些项目在2017年至2020年间过渡到CBD。我们对22个封闭式调查项目进行了描述性统计。第二阶段包括对第一阶段的一部分项目主管的采访。数据分析遵循数据浓缩、数据显示、得出和验证结论的3步迭代过程。结果:在第一阶段,我们收到149份应答,应答率为33.5%。其中127家(85.2%)表示他们的项目有评估,22家(14.8%)表示没有。在进行评价的127个项目中,有29个(22.8%)经常或经常提出评价问题,23个(18.1%)设计了评价提案/方案。参与评估的原因包括决策和促进教育实践的变化。相反,不参与的原因包括缺乏知识、人员和资金。在第二阶段,采访了15位项目主管。他们报告说,生物多样性项目面临着资源有限、支持有限、依赖于特别评估方法和使用基于团队的评估形式等挑战。为了提高评估能力,受访者建议(a)发展项目评估方面的专业知识,(b)获取评估资源,(c)倡导明确的评估期望。结论:大多数CBD住院医师项目都参与了项目评估,但质量往往存在问题。为了充分发挥项目评估的潜力,生物多样性公约项目需要额外的资源和支持来改进评估实践和结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Program Evaluation in Competence by Design: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Background: The evaluation of Competence by Design (CBD) residency programs is crucial for enhancing program effectiveness. However, literature on evaluating CBD programs is limited. We conducted a 2-phase mixed-methods study to (a) assess the extent of program evaluation activities in CBD residency programs in Canada, (b) explore reasons for engaging or not engaging in these activities, (c) examine how CBD programs are conducting program evaluations, and (d) identify ways to build capacity for program evaluation.

Methods: Phase 1 involved surveying 149 program directors from specialty/subspecialty programs that transitioned to CBD between 2017 and 2020. We calculated descriptive statistics for 22 closed-ended survey items. Phase 2 comprised interviews with a subset of program directors from Phase 1. Data analysis followed a 3-step iterative process: data condensation, data display, and drawing and verifying conclusions.

Results: In Phase 1, we received 149 responses, with a 33.5% response rate. Of these, 127 (85.2%) indicated their programs engage in evaluation, while 22 (14.8%) do not. Among the 127 programs that engage in evaluation, 29 (22.8%) frequently or always develop evaluation questions, and 23 (18.1%) design evaluation proposals/plans. Reasons for engaging in evaluation included decision-making and stimulating changes in educational practices. Conversely, reasons for not engaging included lack of knowledge, personnel, and funding. In Phase 2, 15 program directors were interviewed. They reported that CBD programs face challenges such as limited resources and buy-in, rely on ad hoc evaluation methods, and use a team-based evaluation format. To enhance evaluation capacities, interviewees suggested (a) developing expertise in program evaluation, (b) acquiring evaluation resources, and (c) advocating for clear evaluation expectations.

Conclusions: Most CBD residency programs are engaged in program evaluations, but the quality is often questionable. To fully realize the potential of program evaluation, CBD programs need additional resources and support to improve evaluation practices and outcomes.

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
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信