• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Medical Education Online >Adapting the McMaster-Ottawa scale and developing behavioral anchors for assessing performance in an interprofessional Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter
【24h】

Adapting the McMaster-Ottawa scale and developing behavioral anchors for assessing performance in an interprofessional Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter

机译：调整McMaster-Ottawa量表并开发行为锚以评估跨专业团队的表现观察结构化临床遭遇

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

BackgroundCurrent scales for interprofessional team performance do not provide adequate behavioral anchors for performance evaluation. The Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter (TOSCE) provides an opportunity to adapt and develop an existing scale for this purpose. We aimed to test the feasibility of using a retooled scale to rate performance in a standardized patient encounter and to assess faculty ability to accurately rate both individual students and teams.MethodsThe 9-point McMaster-Ottawa Scale developed for a TOSCE was converted to a 3-point scale with behavioral anchors. Students from four professions were trained a priori to perform in teams of four at three different levels as individuals and teams. Blinded faculty raters were trained to use the scale to evaluate individual and team performances. G-theory was used to analyze ability of faculty to accurately rate individual students and teams using the retooled scale.ResultsSixteen faculty, in groups of four, rated four student teams, each participating in the same TOSCE station. Faculty expressed comfort rating up to four students in a team within a 35-min timeframe. Accuracy of faculty raters varied (38–81% individuals, 50–100% teams), with errors in the direction of over-rating individual, but not team performance. There was no consistent pattern of error for raters.ConclusionThe TOSCE can be administered as an evaluation method for interprofessional teams. However, faculty demonstrate a ‘leniency error’ in rating students, even with prior training using behavioral anchors. To improve consistency, we recommend two trained faculty raters per station.
机译：背景当前的跨职业团队绩效量表不能为绩效评估提供足够的行为基础。团队观察型结构化临床接触（TOSCE）提供了一个机会，可以为此目的调整和发展现有的量表。我们的目的是测试使用重组量表在标准化患者遭遇中对表现进行评分并评估教师对单个学生和团队进行准确评分的能力的方法。为TOSCE开发的9点McMaster-Ottawa量表转换为3点刻度与行为锚点。四个职业的学生都经过了先验训练，可以在个人和团队三个不同级别的四个团队中进行表演。培训盲人教师评估师以使用量表评估个人和团队的表现。 G-理论用于分析教师使用重新设计的量表对单个学生和团队进行准确评分的能力。结果十六名教师（每组四个）对四个学生团队进行了评分，每个团队都参与同一TOSCE站。在35分钟的时间范围内，教职员工对一个团队中的最多四个学生表示了舒适度评分。教师评估者的准确性各不相同（38–81％的个人，50–100％的团队），个人偏高的方向存在错误，但团队绩效没有偏向。评估者没有一致的错误模式。结论TOSCE可以作为跨专业团队的评估方法进行管理。但是，即使在事先使用行为锚进行培训的情况下，教师在给学生评分时也表现出“宽容错误”。为了提高一致性，我们建议每站两个受过培训的教师评估师。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号