麻醉学研究生医学教育中书面反馈评价的学习分数质量评估:一项可推广性和决策性研究

Eugene K Choo, Rob Woods, Mary Ellen Walker, Jennifer M O'Brien, Teresa M Chan
{"title":"麻醉学研究生医学教育中书面反馈评价的学习分数质量评估:一项可推广性和决策性研究","authors":"Eugene K Choo, Rob Woods, Mary Ellen Walker, Jennifer M O'Brien, Teresa M Chan","doi":"10.36834/cmej.75876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Competency based residency programs depend on high quality feedback from the assessment of entrustable professional activities (EPA). The Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) score is a tool developed to rate the quality of narrative comments in workplace-based assessments; it has validity evidence for scoring the quality of narrative feedback provided to emergency medicine residents, but it is unknown whether the QuAL score is reliable in the assessment of narrative feedback in other postgraduate programs. Methods: Fifty sets of EPA narratives from a single academic year at our competency based medical education post-graduate anesthesia program were selected by stratified sampling within defined parameters [e.g. resident gender and stage of training, assessor gender, Competency By Design training level, and word count (≥17 or <17 words)]. Two competency committee members and two medical students rated the quality of narrative feedback using a utility score and QuAL score. We used Kendall’s tau-b co-efficient to compare the perceived utility of the written feedback to the quality assessed with the QuAL score. The authors used generalizability and decision studies to estimate the reliability and generalizability coefficients. Results: Both the faculty’s utility scores and QuAL scores (r = 0.646, p < 0.001) and the trainees’ utility scores and QuAL scores (r = 0.667, p < 0.001) were moderately correlated. Results from the generalizability studies showed that utility scores were reliable with two raters for both faculty (Epsilon=0.87, Phi=0.86) and trainees (Epsilon=0.88, Phi=0.88). Conclusions: The QuAL score is correlated with faculty- and trainee-rated utility of anesthesia EPA feedback. Both faculty and trainees can reliability apply the QuAL score to anesthesia EPA narrative feedback. This tool has the potential to be used for faculty development and program evaluation in Competency Based Medical Education. Other programs could consider replicating our study in their specialty.","PeriodicalId":72503,"journal":{"name":"Canadian medical education journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Quality of Assessment for Learning score for evaluating written feedback in anesthesiology postgraduate medical education: a generalizability and decision study\",\"authors\":\"Eugene K Choo, Rob Woods, Mary Ellen Walker, Jennifer M O'Brien, Teresa M Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.36834/cmej.75876\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Competency based residency programs depend on high quality feedback from the assessment of entrustable professional activities (EPA). The Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) score is a tool developed to rate the quality of narrative comments in workplace-based assessments; it has validity evidence for scoring the quality of narrative feedback provided to emergency medicine residents, but it is unknown whether the QuAL score is reliable in the assessment of narrative feedback in other postgraduate programs. Methods: Fifty sets of EPA narratives from a single academic year at our competency based medical education post-graduate anesthesia program were selected by stratified sampling within defined parameters [e.g. resident gender and stage of training, assessor gender, Competency By Design training level, and word count (≥17 or <17 words)]. Two competency committee members and two medical students rated the quality of narrative feedback using a utility score and QuAL score. We used Kendall’s tau-b co-efficient to compare the perceived utility of the written feedback to the quality assessed with the QuAL score. The authors used generalizability and decision studies to estimate the reliability and generalizability coefficients. Results: Both the faculty’s utility scores and QuAL scores (r = 0.646, p < 0.001) and the trainees’ utility scores and QuAL scores (r = 0.667, p < 0.001) were moderately correlated. Results from the generalizability studies showed that utility scores were reliable with two raters for both faculty (Epsilon=0.87, Phi=0.86) and trainees (Epsilon=0.88, Phi=0.88). Conclusions: The QuAL score is correlated with faculty- and trainee-rated utility of anesthesia EPA feedback. Both faculty and trainees can reliability apply the QuAL score to anesthesia EPA narrative feedback. This tool has the potential to be used for faculty development and program evaluation in Competency Based Medical Education. Other programs could consider replicating our study in their specialty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian medical education journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian medical education journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.75876\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian medical education journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.75876","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于能力的住院医师项目依赖于来自可信赖的专业活动(EPA)评估的高质量反馈。学习评估质量(Quality of Assessment for Learning, QuAL)分数是一种工具,用于评估基于工作场所的评估中叙述性评论的质量;对急诊医学住院医师的叙事反馈质量评分有效度证据,但对其他研究生项目的叙事反馈评价是否可靠尚不清楚。方法:采用分层抽样的方法,从我们基于能力的医学教育麻醉研究生项目的一个学年中选取50组EPA叙述,并按照规定的参数(如住院医师性别和培训阶段、评估者性别、能力设计培训水平和字数(≥17或17个单词))进行抽样。两名能力委员会成员和两名医学生使用效用分数和质量分数来评定叙述反馈的质量。我们使用Kendall的tau-b系数来比较书面反馈的感知效用与用QuAL评分评估的质量。作者利用概括性研究和决策研究来估计可靠性系数和概括性系数。结果:教师的效用得分和QuAL得分(r = 0.646, p <0.001),学员的效用得分和QuAL得分(r = 0.667, p <0.001)中度相关。通用性研究的结果表明,对于教师(Epsilon=0.87, Phi=0.86)和实习生(Epsilon=0.88, Phi=0.88),效用评分是可靠的。结论:QuAL评分与教师和培训生评价的麻醉EPA反馈效用相关。教师和学员均可可靠地将QuAL评分应用于麻醉EPA叙事反馈。这个工具有潜力被用于教师发展和项目评估能力为基础的医学教育。其他项目可以考虑在他们的专业中复制我们的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Quality of Assessment for Learning score for evaluating written feedback in anesthesiology postgraduate medical education: a generalizability and decision study
Background: Competency based residency programs depend on high quality feedback from the assessment of entrustable professional activities (EPA). The Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) score is a tool developed to rate the quality of narrative comments in workplace-based assessments; it has validity evidence for scoring the quality of narrative feedback provided to emergency medicine residents, but it is unknown whether the QuAL score is reliable in the assessment of narrative feedback in other postgraduate programs. Methods: Fifty sets of EPA narratives from a single academic year at our competency based medical education post-graduate anesthesia program were selected by stratified sampling within defined parameters [e.g. resident gender and stage of training, assessor gender, Competency By Design training level, and word count (≥17 or <17 words)]. Two competency committee members and two medical students rated the quality of narrative feedback using a utility score and QuAL score. We used Kendall’s tau-b co-efficient to compare the perceived utility of the written feedback to the quality assessed with the QuAL score. The authors used generalizability and decision studies to estimate the reliability and generalizability coefficients. Results: Both the faculty’s utility scores and QuAL scores (r = 0.646, p < 0.001) and the trainees’ utility scores and QuAL scores (r = 0.667, p < 0.001) were moderately correlated. Results from the generalizability studies showed that utility scores were reliable with two raters for both faculty (Epsilon=0.87, Phi=0.86) and trainees (Epsilon=0.88, Phi=0.88). Conclusions: The QuAL score is correlated with faculty- and trainee-rated utility of anesthesia EPA feedback. Both faculty and trainees can reliability apply the QuAL score to anesthesia EPA narrative feedback. This tool has the potential to be used for faculty development and program evaluation in Competency Based Medical Education. Other programs could consider replicating our study in their specialty.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
"Everything new is happening all at once": a qualitative study of early career obstetrician and gynaecologists' preparedness for independent practice. Walk with a Future Doc program allows Canadian medical students to promote physical activity and health education in local communities. 'What would my peers say?' Comparing the opinion-based method with the prediction-based method in Continuing Medical Education course evaluation. Centring equity in medicine: pushback to challenging power. Educational approaches for social accountability in health professions training: a scoping review protocol.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1