• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Medical teacher >Non-technical skills assessments in undergraduate medical education: A focused BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 54
【24h】

Non-technical skills assessments in undergraduate medical education: A focused BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 54

机译：本科医学教育中的非技术技能评估：一个集中的BEME系统审查：BEME指南第54号

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

Consensus on how to assess non-technical skills is lacking. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the evidence regarding non-technical skills assessments in undergraduate medical education, to describe the tools used, learning outcomes and the validity, reliability and psychometrics of the instruments. A standardized search of online databases was conducted and consensus reached on included studies. Data extraction, quality assessment, and content analysis were conducted per Best Evidence in Medical Education guidelines. Nine papers met the inclusion criteria. Assessment methods broadly fell into three categories: simulated clinical scenarios, objective structured clinical examinations, and questionnaires or written assessments. Tools to assess non-technical skills were often developed locally, without reference to conceptual frameworks. Consequently, the tools were rarely validated, limiting dissemination and replication. There were clear themes in content and broad categories in methods of assessments employed. The quality of this evidence was poor due to lack of theoretical underpinning, with most assessments not part of normal process, but rather produced as a specific outcome measure for a teaching-based study. While the current literature forms a good starting position for educators developing materials, there is a need for future work to address these weaknesses as such tools are required across health education.
机译：缺乏关于如何评估非技术技能的共识。该系统审查旨在评估本科医学教育中非技术技能评估的证据，以描述所使用的工具，学习结果以及仪器的有效性，可靠性和精神仪。对在线数据库进行了标准化搜索，并达成了包括的研究。数据提取，质量评估和内容分析是医学教育指南的最佳证据。九篇论文符合纳入标准。评估方法大致分为三类：模拟临床情景，客观结构化的临床考试和问卷或书面评估。评估非技术技能的工具通常在本地开发，不参考概念框架。因此，该工具很少验证，限制传播和复制。在雇用的评估方法中有明确的主题和广泛类别。由于缺乏理论内宁，这一证据的质量很差，大多数评估不是正常过程的一部分，而是作为基于教学的研究的特定结果措施。虽然目前的文献形成了教育工作者的良好起始地位，但需要未来的工作来解决这些弱点，因为这种工具是在健康教育中所必需的。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Medical teacher》 |2019年第7期|共14页
  • 作者

    Gordon Morris; Farnan Jeanne; Grafton-Clarke Ciaran; Ahmed Ridwaan; Gurbutt Dawne; McLachlan John; Daniel Michelle;

  • 作者单位

    Univ Cent Lancashire Dept Evidence Synth &

    Systemat Review Preston Lancs England;

    Univ Chicago Pritzker Sch Med Sect Hosp Med Chicago IL 60637 USA;

    Univ Leicester Sch Life Sci Leicester Leics England;

    Univ Cent Lancashire Publ Hlth Sci Preston Lancs England;

    Univ Cent Lancashire Ctr Excellence Learning &

    Teaching Preston Lancs England;

    Univ Cent Lancashire Sch Med HA340 Harrington Bldg Preston Lancs England;

    Univ Michigan Sch Med Dept Emergency Med &

    Learning Hlth Sci Ann Arbor MI 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