叙事性评论在内科见习评估中的应用:发展空间。

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Medical Education Online Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1080/10872981.2025.2471434
Christine Crumbley, Karen Szauter, Bernard Karnath, Lindsay Sonstein, L Maria Belalcazar, Sidra Qureshi
{"title":"叙事性评论在内科见习评估中的应用:发展空间。","authors":"Christine Crumbley, Karen Szauter, Bernard Karnath, Lindsay Sonstein, L Maria Belalcazar, Sidra Qureshi","doi":"10.1080/10872981.2025.2471434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of narrative comments in medical education poses a unique challenge: comments are intended to provide formative feedback to learners while also being used for summative grades. Given student and internal medicine (IM) grading committee concerns about narrative comment quality, we offered an interactive IM Grand Rounds (GR) session aimed at improving comment quality. We undertook this study to determine the quality of comments submitted by faculty and post-graduate trainees on students' IM Clerkship clinical assessments, and to explore the potential impact of our IM-GR. Archived comments from clerkship cohorts prior to and immediately following IM-GR were reviewed. Clinical clerkship assessment comments include three sections: Medical Student Performance Assessment (MSPE), Areas of Strength, and Areas for Improvement. We adapted a previously published comment assessment tool and identified the performance domain(s) discussed, inclusion of specific examples of student performance, evidence that the comment was based on direct observations, and, when applicable, the inclusion of actionable recommendations. Scoring was based on the number of domains represented and whether an example within that domain was provided (maximum score = 10). Analysis included descriptive statistics, t-test, and Pearson correlation coefficients. We scored 697 comments. Overall, section ratings were MSPE 2.51 (SD 1.52, range 0-9), Areas of Strength 1.53 (SD 1.09, range 0-6), and Areas for Improvement 1.27 (SD 1.06, range 0-8). Significant differences were noted after Grand Rounds only in the MSPE mean scores. Within domains, trends toward increased use of specific examples in the post-GR narratives were noted. Assessment of both the breadth and depth of the included comments revealed low-quality narratives offered by our faculty and resident instructors. A focused session on best practices in writing narratives offered minimal change in the overall narrative quality, although we did notice a trend toward the inclusion of explanative examples.</p>","PeriodicalId":47656,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education Online","volume":"30 1","pages":"2471434"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11864032/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Narrative comments in internal medicine clerkship evaluations: room to grow.\",\"authors\":\"Christine Crumbley, Karen Szauter, Bernard Karnath, Lindsay Sonstein, L Maria Belalcazar, Sidra Qureshi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10872981.2025.2471434\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of narrative comments in medical education poses a unique challenge: comments are intended to provide formative feedback to learners while also being used for summative grades. Given student and internal medicine (IM) grading committee concerns about narrative comment quality, we offered an interactive IM Grand Rounds (GR) session aimed at improving comment quality. We undertook this study to determine the quality of comments submitted by faculty and post-graduate trainees on students' IM Clerkship clinical assessments, and to explore the potential impact of our IM-GR. Archived comments from clerkship cohorts prior to and immediately following IM-GR were reviewed. Clinical clerkship assessment comments include three sections: Medical Student Performance Assessment (MSPE), Areas of Strength, and Areas for Improvement. We adapted a previously published comment assessment tool and identified the performance domain(s) discussed, inclusion of specific examples of student performance, evidence that the comment was based on direct observations, and, when applicable, the inclusion of actionable recommendations. Scoring was based on the number of domains represented and whether an example within that domain was provided (maximum score = 10). Analysis included descriptive statistics, t-test, and Pearson correlation coefficients. We scored 697 comments. Overall, section ratings were MSPE 2.51 (SD 1.52, range 0-9), Areas of Strength 1.53 (SD 1.09, range 0-6), and Areas for Improvement 1.27 (SD 1.06, range 0-8). Significant differences were noted after Grand Rounds only in the MSPE mean scores. Within domains, trends toward increased use of specific examples in the post-GR narratives were noted. Assessment of both the breadth and depth of the included comments revealed low-quality narratives offered by our faculty and resident instructors. A focused session on best practices in writing narratives offered minimal change in the overall narrative quality, although we did notice a trend toward the inclusion of explanative examples.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education Online\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"2471434\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11864032/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Education Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2025.2471434\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education Online","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2025.2471434","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在医学教育中使用叙述性评论提出了一个独特的挑战:评论旨在为学习者提供形成性反馈,同时也用于总结性评分。鉴于学生和内科(IM)评分委员会对叙述性评论质量的关注,我们提供了一个互动的IM大轮会议(GR),旨在提高评论质量。我们进行了这项研究,以确定教师和研究生学员提交的关于学生IM见习临床评估的意见的质量,并探讨我们的IM- gr的潜在影响。在IM-GR之前和之后立即审查了存档的职员意见。临床见习评估意见包括三个部分:医学生绩效评估(MSPE)、优势领域和改进领域。我们改编了先前发布的评论评估工具,并确定了所讨论的绩效领域,包括学生表现的具体例子,评论基于直接观察的证据,以及在适用的情况下,包括可操作的建议。评分基于表示的域的数量以及是否提供了该域中的示例(最高评分= 10)。分析包括描述性统计、t检验和Pearson相关系数。我们得到了697条评论。总体而言,切片评分为MSPE 2.51 (SD 1.52,范围0-9),优势区域1.53 (SD 1.09,范围0-6),改进区域1.27 (SD 1.06,范围0-8)。大查房后,只有MSPE平均评分有显著差异。在领域内,注意到在gr后叙事中增加使用具体例子的趋势。对所包含评论的广度和深度的评估表明,我们的教师和常驻教师提供的叙述质量很低。一个关于写作叙事最佳实践的重点会议对整体叙事质量的影响微乎其微,尽管我们确实注意到一种包括解释性例子的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Narrative comments in internal medicine clerkship evaluations: room to grow.

The use of narrative comments in medical education poses a unique challenge: comments are intended to provide formative feedback to learners while also being used for summative grades. Given student and internal medicine (IM) grading committee concerns about narrative comment quality, we offered an interactive IM Grand Rounds (GR) session aimed at improving comment quality. We undertook this study to determine the quality of comments submitted by faculty and post-graduate trainees on students' IM Clerkship clinical assessments, and to explore the potential impact of our IM-GR. Archived comments from clerkship cohorts prior to and immediately following IM-GR were reviewed. Clinical clerkship assessment comments include three sections: Medical Student Performance Assessment (MSPE), Areas of Strength, and Areas for Improvement. We adapted a previously published comment assessment tool and identified the performance domain(s) discussed, inclusion of specific examples of student performance, evidence that the comment was based on direct observations, and, when applicable, the inclusion of actionable recommendations. Scoring was based on the number of domains represented and whether an example within that domain was provided (maximum score = 10). Analysis included descriptive statistics, t-test, and Pearson correlation coefficients. We scored 697 comments. Overall, section ratings were MSPE 2.51 (SD 1.52, range 0-9), Areas of Strength 1.53 (SD 1.09, range 0-6), and Areas for Improvement 1.27 (SD 1.06, range 0-8). Significant differences were noted after Grand Rounds only in the MSPE mean scores. Within domains, trends toward increased use of specific examples in the post-GR narratives were noted. Assessment of both the breadth and depth of the included comments revealed low-quality narratives offered by our faculty and resident instructors. A focused session on best practices in writing narratives offered minimal change in the overall narrative quality, although we did notice a trend toward the inclusion of explanative examples.

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
Medical Education Online
Medical Education Online EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education Online is an open access journal of health care education, publishing peer-reviewed research, perspectives, reviews, and early documentation of new ideas and trends. Medical Education Online aims to disseminate information on the education and training of physicians and other health care professionals. Manuscripts may address any aspect of health care education and training, including, but not limited to: -Basic science education -Clinical science education -Residency education -Learning theory -Problem-based learning (PBL) -Curriculum development -Research design and statistics -Measurement and evaluation -Faculty development -Informatics/web
×
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