在卫生专业教育中超越简单的研究设计:一组前测后测设计不能证明什么。

Q3 Medicine
S Beth Bierer, Gary Beck Dallaghan, Nicole J Borges, Sam Brondfield, Cha Chi Fung, Kathryn N Huggett, Cayla R Teal, Satid Thammasitboon, Colleen Y Colbert
{"title":"在卫生专业教育中超越简单的研究设计:一组前测后测设计不能证明什么。","authors":"S Beth Bierer, Gary Beck Dallaghan, Nicole J Borges, Sam Brondfield, Cha Chi Fung, Kathryn N Huggett, Cayla R Teal, Satid Thammasitboon, Colleen Y Colbert","doi":"10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Educational research presents unique study design challenges. Novice researchers in health professions education (HPE) frequently misuse the one-group pretest-posttest design, highlighting the need for improved training in research design. This workshop aimed to enhance understanding of research design among novice HPE researchers, specifically addressing the inherent limitations of the one-group pretest-posttest design and offering alternative approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Experienced HPE researchers developed this workshop to address common misunderstandings of research design. Leaders from the AAMC Medical Education, Scholarship, Research, and Evaluation section facilitated 60-75-minute workshops conducted at the four 2024 regional meetings hosted by the AAMC Group on Educational Affairs (GEA). Workshop activities included large-group discussion, small-group case-based discussion, and critiques of research designs. Participants discussed internal validity threats and alternative research designs and scholarly approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Approximately 120 GEA regional meeting registrants attended, with 74 (61%) completing a feedback questionnaire immediately after the workshop. Most respondents reported achieving the workshop's educational objectives, such as being better able to identify internal validity threats associated with the one-group pretest-posttest design (100%) and to discuss alternative approaches to evaluate educational innovations (100%). Additionally, >95% of respondents agreed that the workshop was well organized, interactive, and valuable in providing content they could apply to their educational scholarship.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The workshop successfully clarified misconceptions surrounding the one-group pretest-posttest design while introducing participants to more rigorous research approaches. Facilitator expertise is essential. Future iterations should consider participants' experiences to tailor content further and expand offerings about research methodologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":36910,"journal":{"name":"MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources","volume":"21 ","pages":"11527"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12089416/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Moving Beyond Simplistic Research Design in Health Professions Education: What a One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design Will Not Prove.\",\"authors\":\"S Beth Bierer, Gary Beck Dallaghan, Nicole J Borges, Sam Brondfield, Cha Chi Fung, Kathryn N Huggett, Cayla R Teal, Satid Thammasitboon, Colleen Y Colbert\",\"doi\":\"10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Educational research presents unique study design challenges. Novice researchers in health professions education (HPE) frequently misuse the one-group pretest-posttest design, highlighting the need for improved training in research design. This workshop aimed to enhance understanding of research design among novice HPE researchers, specifically addressing the inherent limitations of the one-group pretest-posttest design and offering alternative approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Experienced HPE researchers developed this workshop to address common misunderstandings of research design. Leaders from the AAMC Medical Education, Scholarship, Research, and Evaluation section facilitated 60-75-minute workshops conducted at the four 2024 regional meetings hosted by the AAMC Group on Educational Affairs (GEA). Workshop activities included large-group discussion, small-group case-based discussion, and critiques of research designs. Participants discussed internal validity threats and alternative research designs and scholarly approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Approximately 120 GEA regional meeting registrants attended, with 74 (61%) completing a feedback questionnaire immediately after the workshop. Most respondents reported achieving the workshop's educational objectives, such as being better able to identify internal validity threats associated with the one-group pretest-posttest design (100%) and to discuss alternative approaches to evaluate educational innovations (100%). Additionally, >95% of respondents agreed that the workshop was well organized, interactive, and valuable in providing content they could apply to their educational scholarship.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The workshop successfully clarified misconceptions surrounding the one-group pretest-posttest design while introducing participants to more rigorous research approaches. Facilitator expertise is essential. Future iterations should consider participants' experiences to tailor content further and expand offerings about research methodologies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36910,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources\",\"volume\":\"21 \",\"pages\":\"11527\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12089416/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11527\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:教育研究提出了独特的研究设计挑战。卫生专业教育(HPE)的新手研究人员经常误用一组前测后测设计,这突出了改进研究设计培训的必要性。本次研讨会旨在提高新手HPE研究人员对研究设计的理解,特别是解决单组前测后测设计的固有局限性,并提供替代方法。方法:经验丰富的HPE研究人员开发了这个研讨会,以解决研究设计的常见误解。来自AAMC医学教育、奖学金、研究和评价科的领导在AAMC教育事务小组(GEA)主办的2024年四次区域会议上主持了60-75分钟的讲习班。工作坊活动包括大小组讨论、小小组案例讨论和研究设计评论。与会者讨论了内部效度威胁和替代研究设计和学术方法。结果:大约120名GEA区域会议注册人参加了会议,其中74名(61%)在研讨会结束后立即完成了反馈问卷。大多数受访者报告实现了研讨会的教育目标,例如能够更好地识别与一组前测后测设计相关的内部效度威胁(100%),并讨论评估教育创新的替代方法(100%)。此外,95%的受访者认为研讨会组织良好,互动性强,提供的内容很有价值,可以应用于他们的教育奖学金。讨论:研讨会成功地澄清了围绕一组前测后测设计的误解,同时向参与者介绍了更严格的研究方法。引导者的专业知识是必不可少的。未来的迭代应该考虑参与者的经验,以进一步定制内容并扩展有关研究方法的产品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Moving Beyond Simplistic Research Design in Health Professions Education: What a One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design Will Not Prove.

Introduction: Educational research presents unique study design challenges. Novice researchers in health professions education (HPE) frequently misuse the one-group pretest-posttest design, highlighting the need for improved training in research design. This workshop aimed to enhance understanding of research design among novice HPE researchers, specifically addressing the inherent limitations of the one-group pretest-posttest design and offering alternative approaches.

Methods: Experienced HPE researchers developed this workshop to address common misunderstandings of research design. Leaders from the AAMC Medical Education, Scholarship, Research, and Evaluation section facilitated 60-75-minute workshops conducted at the four 2024 regional meetings hosted by the AAMC Group on Educational Affairs (GEA). Workshop activities included large-group discussion, small-group case-based discussion, and critiques of research designs. Participants discussed internal validity threats and alternative research designs and scholarly approaches.

Results: Approximately 120 GEA regional meeting registrants attended, with 74 (61%) completing a feedback questionnaire immediately after the workshop. Most respondents reported achieving the workshop's educational objectives, such as being better able to identify internal validity threats associated with the one-group pretest-posttest design (100%) and to discuss alternative approaches to evaluate educational innovations (100%). Additionally, >95% of respondents agreed that the workshop was well organized, interactive, and valuable in providing content they could apply to their educational scholarship.

Discussion: The workshop successfully clarified misconceptions surrounding the one-group pretest-posttest design while introducing participants to more rigorous research approaches. Facilitator expertise is essential. Future iterations should consider participants' experiences to tailor content further and expand offerings about research methodologies.

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
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
35 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