• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Medical teacher >Assessing medical student performance of Entrustable Professional Activities: A mixed methods comparison of Co-Activity and Supervisory Scales
【24h】

Assessing medical student performance of Entrustable Professional Activities: A mixed methods comparison of Co-Activity and Supervisory Scales

机译：评估委托专业活动的医学学生绩效：混合方法的共同活动和监督尺度比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Introduction: Observations of medical student participation in entrustable professional activities (EPAs) provide insight into the student's ability to synthesize competencies across domains and effectively function in different clinical scenarios. Both Supervisory and Co-Activity Assessment Scales have been recommended for use with medical students. Methods: Students were assessed on EPAs during Acting Internships in Medicine and Pediatrics. Two rating scales were modified based on expert review and included throughout the 2017-18 academic year. Statistical analysis was conducted to clarify relationships between the scales. Raters were interviewed to explore their interpretations and response processes. Results: The results of the McNemar test suggest that the scales are different (p-value <.01). Co-activity and Supervisory EPA ratings are related, but not interchangeable. This finding concurs with themes that emerged from response process interviews: (1) the scales are not directly parallel (2) rater preference depends on diverse factors and (3) rater comments are crucial for guiding students' future learning. Conclusion: The modified Chen Supervisory Scale and the modified Ottawa Co-Activity Scales are measuring different aspects of the entrustable professional activity landscape. Both scales can provide useful information to the learner and the assessment system, but they should not be treated as interchangeable assessments.
机译：介绍：医学学生参与委托专业活动的观察（EPAS）为学生综合域中的能力和有效函数在不同的临床情景中提供了洞察力。已经建议与医学生一起使用的监督和共同活动评估秤。方法：在医学和儿科的实习期间对EPA进行评估。根据专家审查修改了两个评级尺度，并包括在2017-18个学年期间。进行统计分析以澄清尺度之间的关系。采访了评估者探讨他们的解释和响应过程。结果：McNemar测试的结果表明尺度不同（P值<.01）。共同活动和监督EPA评级相关，但不能互换。这一发现与从响应过程访谈中出现的主题进行调节：（1）尺度不是直接平行的（2）Rater偏好取决于各种因素，（3）评论评论对于引导学生的未来学习至关重要。结论：修改后的陈监督规模和改进的渥太华共同活动秤正在测量委托专业活动景观的不同方面。两个尺度都可以向学习者和评估系统提供有用的信息，但它们不应被视为可互换的评估。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Medical teacher》 |2020年第3期|共8页
  • 作者

    Cutrer William B.; Russell Regina G.; Davidson Mario; Lomis Kimberly D.;

  • 作者单位

    Vanderbilt Univ Sch Med 429 Eskind Biomed Lib 2209 Garland Ave Nashville TN 37240 USA;

    Vanderbilt Univ Sch Med 429 Eskind Biomed Lib 2209 Garland Ave Nashville TN 37240 USA;

    Vanderbilt Univ Sch Med 429 Eskind Biomed Lib 2209 Garland Ave Nashville TN 37240 USA;

    Amer Med Assoc UME Innovat 515 N State St Chicago IL 60610 USA;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 医药、卫生;
  • 关键词

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