医学教育研究质量工具:容易受主观因素影响的客观工具。

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Medical Education Online Pub Date : 2024-12-31 Epub Date: 2024-01-24 DOI:10.1080/10872981.2024.2308359
Scott Jaros, Gary Beck Dallaghan
{"title":"医学教育研究质量工具:容易受主观因素影响的客观工具。","authors":"Scott Jaros, Gary Beck Dallaghan","doi":"10.1080/10872981.2024.2308359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI) was designed to appraise medical education research quality based on study design criteria. As with many such tools, application of the results may have unintended consequences. This study applied the MERSQI to published medical education research identified in a bibliometric analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A bibliometric analysis identified highly cited articles in medical education that two authors independently evaluated using the MERSQI. After screening duplicate or non-research articles, the authors reviewed 21 articles with the quality instrument. Initially, five articles were reviewed independently and results were compared to ensure agreed upon understanding of the instrument items. The remainder of the articles were independently reviewed. Overall scores for the articles were analyzed with a paired samples t-test and individual item ratings were analyzed for inter-rater reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant difference in mean MERSQI score between reviewers. Inter-rater reliability for MERSQI items labeled response rate, validity and outcomes were considered unacceptable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on these results there is evidence that MERSQI items can be significantly influenced by interpretation, which lead to a difference in scoring. The MERSQI is a useful guide for identifying research methodologies. However, it should not be used to make judgments on the overall quality of medical education research methodology in its current format. The authors make specific recommendations for how the instrument could be revised for greater clarity and accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47656,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education Online","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10810632/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical education research study quality instrument: an objective instrument susceptible to subjectivity.\",\"authors\":\"Scott Jaros, Gary Beck Dallaghan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10872981.2024.2308359\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI) was designed to appraise medical education research quality based on study design criteria. As with many such tools, application of the results may have unintended consequences. This study applied the MERSQI to published medical education research identified in a bibliometric analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A bibliometric analysis identified highly cited articles in medical education that two authors independently evaluated using the MERSQI. After screening duplicate or non-research articles, the authors reviewed 21 articles with the quality instrument. Initially, five articles were reviewed independently and results were compared to ensure agreed upon understanding of the instrument items. The remainder of the articles were independently reviewed. Overall scores for the articles were analyzed with a paired samples t-test and individual item ratings were analyzed for inter-rater reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant difference in mean MERSQI score between reviewers. Inter-rater reliability for MERSQI items labeled response rate, validity and outcomes were considered unacceptable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on these results there is evidence that MERSQI items can be significantly influenced by interpretation, which lead to a difference in scoring. The MERSQI is a useful guide for identifying research methodologies. However, it should not be used to make judgments on the overall quality of medical education research methodology in its current format. The authors make specific recommendations for how the instrument could be revised for greater clarity and accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education Online\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10810632/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Education Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2024.2308359\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/24 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/10.1080/10872981.2024.2308359","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医学教育研究质量工具(MERSQI医学教育研究质量工具(MERSQI)旨在根据研究设计标准评估医学教育研究质量。与许多此类工具一样,结果的应用可能会产生意想不到的后果。本研究将 MERSQI 应用于文献计量分析中发现的已发表的医学教育研究:方法:通过文献计量学分析,确定了两位作者使用 MERSQI 独立评估的医学教育方面的高引用率文章。在筛选出重复或非研究性文章后,作者使用质量工具对 21 篇文章进行了审查。最初,有五篇文章进行了独立评审,并对评审结果进行了比较,以确保对工具项目的理解达成一致。其余文章均为独立审核。通过配对样本 t 检验分析了文章的总体得分,并分析了单个项目评分的评分者间可靠性:结果:不同审稿人的 MERSQI 平均得分存在明显差异。MERSQI项目中标注的回应率、有效性和结果的评阅者间可靠性被认为是不可接受的:根据这些结果,有证据表明 MERSQI 项目会受到解释的显著影响,从而导致评分差异。MERSQI 是确定研究方法的有用指南。然而,在目前的形式下,它不应被用来对医学教育研究方法的整体质量做出判断。作者就如何修订该工具以提高其清晰度和准确性提出了具体建议。
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
Medical education research study quality instrument: an objective instrument susceptible to subjectivity.

Background: The medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI) was designed to appraise medical education research quality based on study design criteria. As with many such tools, application of the results may have unintended consequences. This study applied the MERSQI to published medical education research identified in a bibliometric analysis.

Methods: A bibliometric analysis identified highly cited articles in medical education that two authors independently evaluated using the MERSQI. After screening duplicate or non-research articles, the authors reviewed 21 articles with the quality instrument. Initially, five articles were reviewed independently and results were compared to ensure agreed upon understanding of the instrument items. The remainder of the articles were independently reviewed. Overall scores for the articles were analyzed with a paired samples t-test and individual item ratings were analyzed for inter-rater reliability.

Results: There was a significant difference in mean MERSQI score between reviewers. Inter-rater reliability for MERSQI items labeled response rate, validity and outcomes were considered unacceptable.

Conclusions: Based on these results there is evidence that MERSQI items can be significantly influenced by interpretation, which lead to a difference in scoring. The MERSQI is a useful guide for identifying research methodologies. However, it should not be used to make judgments on the overall quality of medical education research methodology in its current format. The authors make specific recommendations for how the instrument could be revised for greater clarity and accuracy.

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
期刊最新文献
Medical law; promotion of medicine curriculum: a letter to editor. Tips for developing a coaching program in medical education. High- and low-achieving international medical students' perceptions of the factors influencing their academic performance at Chinese universities. A Medical Education Research Library: key research topics and associated experts. Financial barriers and inequity in medical education in India: challenges to training a diverse and representative healthcare workforce.
×
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
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