从入学到取得执照:多中心本科医学教育合作的教育数据关联。

IF 3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Advances in Health Sciences Education Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI:10.1007/s10459-024-10326-2
S. Chahine, I. Bartman, K. Kulasegaram, D Archibald, P. Wang, C. Wilson, B. Ross, E. Cameron, J. Hogenbirk, C. Barber, R. Burgess, E. Katsoulas, C. Touchie, L Grierson
{"title":"从入学到取得执照:多中心本科医学教育合作的教育数据关联。","authors":"S. Chahine,&nbsp;I. Bartman,&nbsp;K. Kulasegaram,&nbsp;D Archibald,&nbsp;P. Wang,&nbsp;C. Wilson,&nbsp;B. Ross,&nbsp;E. Cameron,&nbsp;J. Hogenbirk,&nbsp;C. Barber,&nbsp;R. Burgess,&nbsp;E. Katsoulas,&nbsp;C. Touchie,&nbsp;L Grierson","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10326-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper reports the findings of a Canada based multi-institutional study designed to investigate the relationships between admissions criteria, in-program assessments, and performance on licensing exams. The study’s objective is to provide valuable insights for improving educational practices across different institutions. Data were gathered from six medical schools: McMaster University, the Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Queen’s University, University of Ottawa, University of Toronto, and Western University. The dataset includes graduates who undertook the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part 1 (MCCQE1) between 2015 and 2017. The data were categorized into five distinct sections: demographic information as well as four matrices: admissions, course performance, objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and clerkship performance. Common and unique variables were identified through an extensive consensus-building process. Hierarchical linear regression and a manual stepwise variable selection approach were used for analysis. Analyses were performed on data set encompassing graduates of all six medical schools as well as on individual data sets from each school. For the combined data set the final model estimated 32% of the variance in performance on licensing exams, highlighting variables such as Age at Admission, Sex, Biomedical Knowledge, the first post-clerkship OSCE, and a clerkship theta score. Individual school analysis explained 41–60% of the variance in MCCQE1 outcomes, with comparable variables to the analysis from of the combined data set identified as significant independent variables. Therefore, strongly emphasising the need for variety of high-quality assessment on the educational continuum. This study underscores the importance of sharing data to enable educational insights. This study also had its challenges when it came to the access and aggregation of data. As such we advocate for the establishment of a common framework for multi-institutional educational research, facilitating studies and evaluations across diverse institutions. This study demonstrates the scientific potential of collaborative data analysis in enhancing educational outcomes. It offers a deeper understanding of the factors influencing performance on licensure exams and emphasizes the need for addressing data gaps to advance multi-institutional research for educational improvements.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 4","pages":"1393 - 1415"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From admissions to licensure: education data associations from a multi-centre undergraduate medical education collaboration\",\"authors\":\"S. Chahine,&nbsp;I. Bartman,&nbsp;K. Kulasegaram,&nbsp;D Archibald,&nbsp;P. Wang,&nbsp;C. Wilson,&nbsp;B. Ross,&nbsp;E. Cameron,&nbsp;J. Hogenbirk,&nbsp;C. Barber,&nbsp;R. Burgess,&nbsp;E. Katsoulas,&nbsp;C. Touchie,&nbsp;L Grierson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10459-024-10326-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper reports the findings of a Canada based multi-institutional study designed to investigate the relationships between admissions criteria, in-program assessments, and performance on licensing exams. The study’s objective is to provide valuable insights for improving educational practices across different institutions. Data were gathered from six medical schools: McMaster University, the Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Queen’s University, University of Ottawa, University of Toronto, and Western University. The dataset includes graduates who undertook the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part 1 (MCCQE1) between 2015 and 2017. The data were categorized into five distinct sections: demographic information as well as four matrices: admissions, course performance, objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and clerkship performance. Common and unique variables were identified through an extensive consensus-building process. Hierarchical linear regression and a manual stepwise variable selection approach were used for analysis. Analyses were performed on data set encompassing graduates of all six medical schools as well as on individual data sets from each school. For the combined data set the final model estimated 32% of the variance in performance on licensing exams, highlighting variables such as Age at Admission, Sex, Biomedical Knowledge, the first post-clerkship OSCE, and a clerkship theta score. Individual school analysis explained 41–60% of the variance in MCCQE1 outcomes, with comparable variables to the analysis from of the combined data set identified as significant independent variables. Therefore, strongly emphasising the need for variety of high-quality assessment on the educational continuum. This study underscores the importance of sharing data to enable educational insights. This study also had its challenges when it came to the access and aggregation of data. As such we advocate for the establishment of a common framework for multi-institutional educational research, facilitating studies and evaluations across diverse institutions. This study demonstrates the scientific potential of collaborative data analysis in enhancing educational outcomes. It offers a deeper understanding of the factors influencing performance on licensure exams and emphasizes the need for addressing data gaps to advance multi-institutional research for educational improvements.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"1393 - 1415\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-024-10326-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-024-10326-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文报告了一项基于加拿大的多机构研究的结果,该研究旨在调查录取标准、课程内评估和执业资格考试成绩之间的关系。该研究的目的是为改进不同院校的教育实践提供有价值的见解。数据来自六所医学院:麦克马斯特大学、北安大略医学院大学、皇后大学、渥太华大学、多伦多大学和西部大学。数据集包括 2015 年至 2017 年期间参加加拿大医学委员会资格考试第一部分(MCCQE1)的毕业生。数据分为五个不同的部分:人口统计学信息以及四个矩阵:录取、课程成绩、客观结构化临床考试(OSCE)和实习成绩。通过广泛的建立共识过程,确定了共同和独特的变量。分析中使用了层次线性回归和人工逐步选择变量的方法。对包括所有六所医学院毕业生的数据集以及每所医学院的单个数据集进行了分析。对于综合数据集,最终模型估计了执业医师资格考试成绩差异的 32%,突出了入学年龄、性别、生物医学知识、实习后第一次 OSCE 和实习 theta 分数等变量。对单个学校的分析解释了 MCCQE1 结果中 41-60% 的差异,与合并数据集的分析结果相当的变量被确定为重要的自变量。因此,这有力地强调了在教育连续体中进行各种高质量评估的必要性。这项研究强调了共享数据对提高教育洞察力的重要性。这项研究在数据的获取和汇总方面也遇到了挑战。因此,我们主张为多机构教育研究建立一个共同框架,促进不同机构之间的研究和评估。本研究展示了合作数据分析在提高教育成果方面的科学潜力。它让我们对影响执业资格考试成绩的因素有了更深入的了解,并强调了解决数据缺口的必要性,以推进多机构研究,改善教育。
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
From admissions to licensure: education data associations from a multi-centre undergraduate medical education collaboration

This paper reports the findings of a Canada based multi-institutional study designed to investigate the relationships between admissions criteria, in-program assessments, and performance on licensing exams. The study’s objective is to provide valuable insights for improving educational practices across different institutions. Data were gathered from six medical schools: McMaster University, the Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Queen’s University, University of Ottawa, University of Toronto, and Western University. The dataset includes graduates who undertook the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part 1 (MCCQE1) between 2015 and 2017. The data were categorized into five distinct sections: demographic information as well as four matrices: admissions, course performance, objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and clerkship performance. Common and unique variables were identified through an extensive consensus-building process. Hierarchical linear regression and a manual stepwise variable selection approach were used for analysis. Analyses were performed on data set encompassing graduates of all six medical schools as well as on individual data sets from each school. For the combined data set the final model estimated 32% of the variance in performance on licensing exams, highlighting variables such as Age at Admission, Sex, Biomedical Knowledge, the first post-clerkship OSCE, and a clerkship theta score. Individual school analysis explained 41–60% of the variance in MCCQE1 outcomes, with comparable variables to the analysis from of the combined data set identified as significant independent variables. Therefore, strongly emphasising the need for variety of high-quality assessment on the educational continuum. This study underscores the importance of sharing data to enable educational insights. This study also had its challenges when it came to the access and aggregation of data. As such we advocate for the establishment of a common framework for multi-institutional educational research, facilitating studies and evaluations across diverse institutions. This study demonstrates the scientific potential of collaborative data analysis in enhancing educational outcomes. It offers a deeper understanding of the factors influencing performance on licensure exams and emphasizes the need for addressing data gaps to advance multi-institutional research for educational improvements.

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
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
期刊最新文献
Social support and academic procrastination in health professions students: the serial mediating effect of intrinsic learning motivation and academic self-efficacy. To define or not to define: a commentary on 'The case for metacognitive reflection'. Team science in interdisciplinary health professions education research: a multi-institutional case study. Belonging in dual roles: exploring professional identity formation among disabled healthcare students and clinicians. Understanding simulation-based learning for health professions students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a scoping review.
×
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