哪种类型的自我评估最适合您的教育活动?对事前、事中和事后设计的回顾。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of General Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1007/s11606-024-09176-w
James H Wykowski, Helene Starks
{"title":"哪种类型的自我评估最适合您的教育活动?对事前、事中和事后设计的回顾。","authors":"James H Wykowski, Helene Starks","doi":"10.1007/s11606-024-09176-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In medical education, learner self-assessments are standard methods used to evaluate the impact of curricula and workshops. Due to the subjective nature of self-assessment, these measures are prone to known biases including framing, recall, social desirability, and response-shift bias. These biases can contribute to floor and ceiling effects of measurement, which can lead to false conclusions about whether the intended learning objectives were achieved. Ideal assessments of skills-based educational activities would include standardized tests and structured observations of learners demonstrating skill use before and after the educational intervention. However, educators often lack the necessary resources, time, and expertise to routinely conduct these appraisals and rely on self-assessment as a pragmatic approach to obtaining curriculum feedback and evaluation data. In this review, we describe three common designs for self-assessments: the pre-post, now-then, and post-only designs. We then give recommendations for choosing between each design to minimize bias. The choice of the best design is based on alignments with four considerations: (1) the educational objectives (e.g., demonstrate skill competency and/or change in skill level); (2) participants' prior experience and shared understanding of levels of skill performance; (3) the nature of the educational activity; and (4) available resources. For each design, we review strengths, weaknesses, and known biases and discuss examples to highlight trade-offs between options. We also discuss the use of control groups and follow-up surveys to measure retention over time as additional methods to address bias and related confounding. The guidance presented here is intended to raise educators' awareness of common pitfalls in self-assessment; minimize the impact of known biases when possible; provide evidence, examples, and rationales for optimal design choices; and increase the rigor of self-assessment evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Type of Self-Assessment Is Best for Your Educational Activity? A Review of Pre-Post, Now-Then, and Post-Only Designs.\",\"authors\":\"James H Wykowski, Helene Starks\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11606-024-09176-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In medical education, learner self-assessments are standard methods used to evaluate the impact of curricula and workshops. Due to the subjective nature of self-assessment, these measures are prone to known biases including framing, recall, social desirability, and response-shift bias. These biases can contribute to floor and ceiling effects of measurement, which can lead to false conclusions about whether the intended learning objectives were achieved. Ideal assessments of skills-based educational activities would include standardized tests and structured observations of learners demonstrating skill use before and after the educational intervention. However, educators often lack the necessary resources, time, and expertise to routinely conduct these appraisals and rely on self-assessment as a pragmatic approach to obtaining curriculum feedback and evaluation data. In this review, we describe three common designs for self-assessments: the pre-post, now-then, and post-only designs. We then give recommendations for choosing between each design to minimize bias. The choice of the best design is based on alignments with four considerations: (1) the educational objectives (e.g., demonstrate skill competency and/or change in skill level); (2) participants' prior experience and shared understanding of levels of skill performance; (3) the nature of the educational activity; and (4) available resources. For each design, we review strengths, weaknesses, and known biases and discuss examples to highlight trade-offs between options. We also discuss the use of control groups and follow-up surveys to measure retention over time as additional methods to address bias and related confounding. The guidance presented here is intended to raise educators' awareness of common pitfalls in self-assessment; minimize the impact of known biases when possible; provide evidence, examples, and rationales for optimal design choices; and increase the rigor of self-assessment evaluations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09176-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09176-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在医学教育中,学习者自我评估是用于评估课程和研讨会影响的标准方法。由于自我评估的主观性,这些测量方法很容易出现已知的偏差,包括框架偏差、回忆偏差、社会可取性偏差和反应偏移偏差。这些偏差会造成测量的下限和上限效应,从而导致对是否达到预期学习目标的错误结论。以技能为基础的教育活动的理想评估包括标准化测试和对学习者在教育干预前后展示技能使用情况的结构化观察。然而,教育工作者往往缺乏必要的资源、时间和专业知识来定期进行这些评估,而只能依靠自我评估作为获取课程反馈和评估数据的实用方法。在这篇综述中,我们介绍了三种常见的自我评估设计:前-后设计、现-后设计和仅后设计。然后,我们就如何选择每种设计以尽量减少偏差提出了建议。最佳设计的选择基于以下四个方面的考虑:(1) 教育目标(例如,展示技能能力和/或技能水平的变化);(2) 参与者的先前经验和对技能水平的共同理解;(3) 教育活动的性质;(4) 可用资源。对于每种设计,我们都会回顾其优点、缺点和已知的偏差,并通过实例讨论来突出不同方案之间的权衡。我们还讨论了使用对照组和跟踪调查来衡量一段时间内的保留率,以此作为解决偏差和相关混杂问题的其他方法。本文提供的指导旨在提高教育工作者对自我评估中常见误区的认识;尽可能减少已知偏差的影响;提供最佳设计选择的证据、实例和理由;以及提高自我评估评价的严谨性。
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
What Type of Self-Assessment Is Best for Your Educational Activity? A Review of Pre-Post, Now-Then, and Post-Only Designs.

In medical education, learner self-assessments are standard methods used to evaluate the impact of curricula and workshops. Due to the subjective nature of self-assessment, these measures are prone to known biases including framing, recall, social desirability, and response-shift bias. These biases can contribute to floor and ceiling effects of measurement, which can lead to false conclusions about whether the intended learning objectives were achieved. Ideal assessments of skills-based educational activities would include standardized tests and structured observations of learners demonstrating skill use before and after the educational intervention. However, educators often lack the necessary resources, time, and expertise to routinely conduct these appraisals and rely on self-assessment as a pragmatic approach to obtaining curriculum feedback and evaluation data. In this review, we describe three common designs for self-assessments: the pre-post, now-then, and post-only designs. We then give recommendations for choosing between each design to minimize bias. The choice of the best design is based on alignments with four considerations: (1) the educational objectives (e.g., demonstrate skill competency and/or change in skill level); (2) participants' prior experience and shared understanding of levels of skill performance; (3) the nature of the educational activity; and (4) available resources. For each design, we review strengths, weaknesses, and known biases and discuss examples to highlight trade-offs between options. We also discuss the use of control groups and follow-up surveys to measure retention over time as additional methods to address bias and related confounding. The guidance presented here is intended to raise educators' awareness of common pitfalls in self-assessment; minimize the impact of known biases when possible; provide evidence, examples, and rationales for optimal design choices; and increase the rigor of self-assessment evaluations.

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
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.
期刊最新文献
Discussing Weight with Patients in Primary Care in Australia: A Mixed Methods Experimental Study. Association of Observation Stays with Clinical Outcomes and Costs in Medicare: An Instrumental Variable Analysis. The Master Adaptive Clinician Educator: A Framework for Future Educational Leaders in Academic Medicine. Empagliflozin in Diuretic-Refractory Ascites (DRAin-Em): Results of a Single-Center Feasibility Study. Effectiveness of a Novel Global Telemedicine Curriculum for Medical Students.
×
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