• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Medical teacher >An investigation into the use of multi-source feedback (MSF) as a work-based assessment tool
【24h】

An investigation into the use of multi-source feedback (MSF) as a work-based assessment tool

机译：关于使用多源反馈（MSF）作为基于工作的评估工具的调查

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: This study compared Specialist Trainees' (STs) hand-selected multi-source feedback (MSF) scores with those made by their clinical supervisors and explored perceptions of both those being assessed and those assessing.Methods: Participating STs were asked to hand a mini-PAT questionnaire to a clinical colleague of their choice and also to their Clinical Supervisor. Statistical analysis was carried out on submitted paired assessments to determine any differences in responses between clinical supervisors and hand-chosen assessors. Semi-structured interviews were held with seven nurses, seven Consultants and six postgraduate doctors.Results: Forty pairs of mini-PAT questionnaires were analysed. Hand-chosen assessors' ratings were significantly higher than those for clinical supervisors with respect to: "good clinical care" (p0.01), "good medical practice" (p0.05), "teaching and training" (p0.01), "relationship with patients" (p0.05) as well as for overall impression of the trainee (p0.05). Five themes were identified from interviews: validity of selecting assessors; anonymity of assessors; usefulness of feedback; the value of multi-professional assessors; and grading.Discussions: There is a systematic difference in the assessment scores for trainees in MSF between clinical supervisors and hand-chosen assessors, the former scoring trainees more harshly. Grading was open to interpretation. This raised questions, especially from nurse interviewees regarding appropriate benchmarking.
机译：简介：本研究将专科生（ST）的人工选择的多源反馈（MSF）得分与其临床主管的分数进行了比较，并探讨了对被评估者和被评估者的看法。 mini-PAT问卷，发给他们选择的临床同事以及他们的临床主管。对提交的配对评估进行统计分析，以确定临床主管和人工选择的评估员之间的反应差异。对七名护士，七名顾问和六名研究生医生进行了半结构化访谈。结果：分析了四十对mini-PAT问卷。在“良好的临床护理”（p0.01），“良好的医疗习惯”（p0.05），“教学和培训”（p0.01）方面，人工选择的评估者的评分显着高于临床主管。 ，“与患者的关系”（p0.05）以及受训者的总体印象（p0.05）。访谈确定了五个主题：评估人的选择有效性;评估者的匿名性;反馈的有用性;多专业评估者的价值;讨论：临床主管和人工选择的评估员对MSF学员的评估分数存在系统性差异，前者对学员的评分更高。评分是可以解释的。这引起了问题，尤其是来自护士受访者的有关适当基准的问题。

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