Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions最新文献

Purpose: Distance learning describes any learning based on the use of new multimedia technologies and the internet to allow students to acquire new knowledge and skills at a distance. This study aimed to determine satisfaction levels with distance learning and associated factors among nursing and health technician students during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Morocco.

Methods: An descriptive study was conducted between April and June 2022 among nursing and health technician students using a self-administered instrument. The student satisfaction questionnaire consists of 24 questions categorized into 6 subscales: instructor, technology, course setup, interaction, outcomes, and overall satisfaction. It was based on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with student satisfaction during distance learning.

Results: A total of 330 students participated in this study, and 176 students (53.3%) were satisfied with the distance learning activities. A mean score higher than 2.8 out of 5 was obtained for all subscales. Multiple regression analysis showed that students’ year of study (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28–4.27) and internet quality (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29–0.77) were the significant factors associated with students’ satisfaction during distance learning.

Conclusion: This study highlights the satisfaction level of students and factors that influenced it during distance learning. A thorough understanding of student satisfaction with digital environments will contribute to the successful implementation of distance learning devices in nursing.

Purpose: The percent Angoff (PA) method has been recommended as a reliable method to set the cutoff score instead of a fixed cut point of 60% in the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE). The yes/no Angoff (YNA) method, which is easy for panelists to judge, can be considered as an alternative because the KMLE has many items to evaluate. This study aimed to compare the cutoff score and the reliability depending on whether the PA or the YNA standard-setting method was used in the KMLE.

Methods: The materials were the open-access PA data of the KMLE. The PA data were converted to YNA data in 5 categories, in which the probabilities for a “yes” decision by panelists were 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%. SPSS for descriptive analysis and G-string for generalizability theory were used to present the results.

Results: The PA method and the YNA method counting 60% as “yes,” estimated similar cutoff scores. Those cutoff scores were deemed acceptable based on the results of the Hofstee method. The highest reliability coefficients estimated by the generalizability test were from the PA method and the YNA method, with probabilities of 70%, 80%, 60%, and 50% for deciding “yes,” in descending order. The panelist’s specialty was the main cause of the error variance. The error size was similar regardless of the standard-setting method.

Conclusion: The above results showed that the PA method was more reliable than the YNA method in estimating the cutoff score of the KMLE. However, the YNA method with a 60% probability for deciding “yes” also can be used as a substitute for the PA method in estimating the cutoff score of the KMLE.

Purpose: It aimed to investigate physical therapy students’ perception of their ability of clinical and clinical decision-making skills after a simulation-based learning course in the United States.

Methods: Survey questionnaires were administered to voluntary participants, including 44 second and third-year physical therapy students of the University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences during 2021–2022. Thirty-six questionnaire items consisted of 4 demographic items, 1 general evaluation, 21 test items for clinical decision-making skills, and 4 clinical skill items. Descriptive and inferential statistics evaluated differences in students’ perception of their ability in clinical decision-making and clinical skills, pre- and post-simulation, and post-first clinical experience during 2021–2022.

Results: Friedman test revealed a significant increase from pre- to post-simulation in perception of the ability of clinical and clinical decision-making skills total tool score (P<0.001), clinical decision-making 21-item score (P<0.001), and clinical skills score (P<0.001). No significant differences were found between post-simulation and post-first clinical experience. Post-hoc tests indicated a significant difference between pre-simulation and post-simulation (P<0.001) and between pre-simulation and post-first clinical experience (P<0.001). Forty-three students (97.6%) either strongly agreed (59.1%) or agreed (38.5%) that simulation was a valuable learning experience.

Conclusion: The above findings suggest that simulation-based learning helped students begin their first clinical experience with enhanced clinical and clinical decision-making skills.

Purpose: The study investigates the efficacy of new features introduced to the selection process for medical school at the University of New South Wales, Australia: (1) considering the relative ranks rather than scores of the Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admission Test and Australian Tertiary Admission Rank; (2) structured interview focusing on interpersonal interaction and concerns should the applicants become students; and (3) embracing interviewers’ diverse perspectives.

Methods: Data from 5 cohorts of students were analyzed, comparing outcomes of the second year in the medicine program of 4 cohorts of the old selection process and 1 of the new process. The main analysis comprised multiple linear regression models for predicting academic, clinical, and professional outcomes, by section tools and demographic variables.

Results: Selection interview marks from the new interview (512 applicants, 2 interviewers each) were analyzed for inter-rater reliability, which identified a high level of agreement (kappa=0.639). No such analysis was possible for the old interview since it required interviewers to reach a consensus. Multivariate linear regression models utilizing outcomes for 5 cohorts (N=905) revealed that the new selection process was much more effective in predicting academic and clinical achievement in the program (R2=9.4%–17.8% vs. R2=1.5%–8.4%).

Conclusion: The results suggest that the medical student selection process can be significantly enhanced by employing a non-compensatory selection algorithm; and using a structured interview focusing on interpersonal interaction and concerns should the applicants become students; as well as embracing interviewers’ diverse perspectives.

Purpose: The literature suggests that the ability to numerate cannot be fully understood without accounting for the social context in which mathematical activity is represented. Team-based learning (TBL) is an andragogical approach with theoretical links to sociocultural and community-of-practice learning. This study aimed to quantitatively explore the impact of TBL instruction on numeracy development in 2 cohorts of pharmacy students and identify the impact of TBL instruction on numeracy development from a social perspective for healthcare education.

Methods: Two cohorts of students were administered the Health Science Reasoning Test-Numeracy (HSRT-N) before beginning pharmacy school. Two years after using TBL as the primary method of instruction, both comprehensive and domain data from the HSRT-N were analyzed.

Results: In total, 163 pharmacy student scores met the inclusion criteria. The students’ numeracy skills measured by HSRT-N improved after 2 years of TBL instruction.

Conclusion: Numeracy was the most significantly improved HSRT-N domain in pharmacy students following two years of TBL instruction. Although a closer examination of numeracy development in TBL is warranted, initial data suggest that TBL instruction may be an adequate proxy for advancing numeracy in a cohort of pharmacy students. TBL may encourage a social practice of mathematics to improve pharmacy students’ ability to numerate critically.

Purpose: Endotracheal intubation and central venous catheterization are essential procedures in clinical practice. Simulation-based technology such as smart glasses has been used to facilitate medical students’ training on these procedures. We investigated medical students’ self-assessed efficacy and satisfaction regarding the practice and training of these procedures with smart glasses in Taiwan.

Methods: This observational study enrolled 145 medical students in the 5th and 6th years participating in clerkships at Taipei Veterans General Hospital between October 2020 and December 2021. Students were divided into the smart glasses or the control group and received training at a workshop. The primary outcomes included students’ pre- and post-intervention scores for self-assessed efficacy and satisfaction with the training tool, instructor’s teaching, and the workshop.

Results: The pre-intervention scores for self-assessed efficacy of 5th- and 6th-year medical students in endotracheal intubation and central venous catheterization procedures showed no significant difference. The post-intervention score of self-assessed efficacy in the smart glasses group was better than that of the control group. Moreover, 6th-year medical students in the smart glasses group showed higher satisfaction with the training tool, instructor’s teaching, and workshop than those in the control group.

Conclusion: Smart glasses served as a suitable simulation tool for endotracheal intubation and central venous catheterization procedures training in medical students. Medical students practicing with smart glasses showed improved self-assessed efficacy and higher satisfaction with training, especially for procedural steps in a space-limited field. Simulation training on procedural skills with smart glasses in 5th-year medical students may be adjusted to improve their satisfaction.

Purpose: This review investigated medical students’ satisfaction level with e-learning during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its related factors.

Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was performed of international literature databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Persian databases such as Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as “Distance learning,” “Distance education,” “Online learning,” “Online education,” and “COVID-19” from the earliest date to July 10, 2022. The quality of the studies included in this review was evaluated using the appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS tool).

Results: A total of 15,473 medical science students were enrolled in 24 studies. The level of satisfaction with e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic among medical science students was 51.8%. Factors such as age, gender, clinical year, experience with e-learning before COVID-19, level of study, adaptation content of course materials, interactivity, understanding of the content, active participation of the instructor in the discussion, multimedia use in teaching sessions, adequate time dedicated to the e-learning, stress perception, and convenience had significant relationships with the satisfaction of medical students with e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion: Therefore, due to the inevitability of online education and e-learning, it is suggested that educational managers and policymakers choose the best online education method for medical students by examining various studies in this field to increase their satisfaction with e-learning.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify factors that have been studied for their associations with National Licensing Examination (ENAM) scores in Peru.

Methods: A search was conducted of literature databases and registers, including EMBASE, SciELO, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Peru’s National Register of Research Work, and Google Scholar. The following key terms were used: “ENAM” and “associated factors.” Studies in English and Spanish were included. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

Results: In total, 38,500 participants were enrolled in 12 studies. Most (11/12) studies were cross-sectional, except for one case-control study. Three studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. The mean MERSQI was 10.33. A better performance on the ENAM was associated with a higher-grade point average (GPA) (n=8), internship setting in EsSalud (n=4), and regular academic status (n=3). Other factors showed associations in various studies, such as medical school, internship setting, age, gender, socioeconomic status, simulations test, study resources, preparation time, learning styles, study techniques, test-anxiety, and self-regulated learning strategies.

Conclusion: The ENAM is a multifactorial phenomenon; our model gives students a locus of control on what they can do to improve their score (i.e., implement self-regulated learning strategies) and faculty, health policymakers, and managers a framework to improve the ENAM score (i.e., design remediation programs to improve GPA and integrate anxiety-management courses into the curriculum).

Purpose: This study aims to apply the yes/no Angoff and Hofstee methods to actual Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) 2022 written examination data to estimate cut scores for the written KMLE.

Methods: Fourteen panelists gathered to derive the cut score of the 86th KMLE written examination data using the yes/no Angoff method. The panel reviewed the items individually before the meeting and shared their respective understanding of the minimum-competency physician. The standard setting process was conducted in 5 rounds over a total of 800 minutes. In addition, 2 rounds of the Hofstee method were conducted before starting the standard setting process and after the second round of yes/no Angoff.

Results: For yes/no Angoff, as each round progressed, the panel’s opinion gradually converged to a cut score of 198 points, and the final passing rate was 95.1%. The Hofstee cut score was 208 points out of a maximum 320 with a passing rate of 92.1% at the first round. It scored 204 points with a passing rate of 93.3% in the second round.

Conclusion: The difference between the cut scores obtained through yes/no Angoff and Hofstee methods did not exceed 2% points, and they were within the range of cut scores from previous studies. In both methods, the difference between the panelists decreased as rounds were repeated. Overall, our findings suggest the acceptability of cut scores and the possibility of independent use of both methods.