nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.04.2012 | Original Research

Improving Participant Feedback to Continuing Medical Education Presenters in Internal Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Study

verfasst von: Christopher M. Wittich, MD, PharmD, Karen F. Mauck, MD, MS, Jayawant N. Mandrekar, PhD, Karol A. Gluth, BA, Colin P. West, MD, PhD, Scott C. Litin, MD, Thomas J. Beckman, MD

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 4/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Feedback is essential for improving the skills of continuing medical education (CME) presenters. However, there has been little research on improving the quality of feedback to CME presenters.

OBJECTIVES

To validate an instrument for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback from a national cross-section of participants to presenters at a large internal medicine CME course.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective, randomized validation study with qualitative data analysis that included all 317 participants at a Mayo Clinic internal medicine CME course in 2009.

MEASUREMENTS

An 8-item (5-point Likert scales) CME faculty assessment enhanced study form (ESF) was designed based on literature and expert review. Course participants were randomized to a standard form, a generic study form (GSF), or the ESF. The dimensionality of instrument scores was determined using factor analysis to account for clustered data. Internal consistency and interrater reliabilities were calculated. Associations between overall feedback scores and presenter and presentation variables were identified using generalized estimating equations to account for multiple observations within talk and speaker combinations. Two raters reached consensus on qualitative themes and independently analyzed narrative entries for evidence of balanced and behavior-specific comments.

RESULTS

Factor analysis of 5,241 evaluations revealed a uni-dimensional model for measuring CME presenter feedback. Overall internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.94) and internal consistency reliability (ICC range 0.88–0.95) were excellent. Feedback scores were associated with presenters’ academic ranks (mean score): Instructor (4.12), Assistant Professor (4.38), Associate Professor (4.56), Professor (4.70) (p = 0.046). Qualitative analysis revealed that the ESF generated the highest numbers of balanced comments (GSF = 11, ESF = 26; p = 0.01) and behavior-specific comments (GSF = 64, ESF = 104; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We describe a practical and validated method for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback for CME presenters in internal medicine. Our simple method for prompting course participants to give balanced and behavior-specific comments may ultimately provide CME presenters with feedback for improving their presentations.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Beckman TJ. Lessons learned from a peer review of bedside teaching. Acad Med. 2004;79(4):343–6.PubMedCrossRef

Sargeant JM, Mann KV, van der Vleuten CP, Metsemakers JF. Reflection: a link between receiving and using assessment feedback. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2009;14(3):399–410.CrossRef

Irby DM. What clinical teachers in medicine need to know. Acad Med. 1994;69(5):333–42.PubMedCrossRef

Skeff KM. Enhancing teaching effectiveness and vitality in the ambulatory setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3(2 Suppl):S26–33.PubMedCrossRef

Branch WT Jr, Paranjape A. Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings. Acad Med. 2002;77(12 Pt 1):1185–8.PubMedCrossRef

McGee SR, Irby DM. Teaching in the outpatient clinic. Practical tips. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(Suppl 2):S34–40.PubMedCrossRef

Beckman TJ, Lee MC. Proposal for a collaborative approach to clinical teaching. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(4):339–44.PubMed

Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250(6):777–81.PubMedCrossRef

Wood TJ, Marks M, Jabbour M. The development of a participant questionnaire to assess continuing medical education presentations. Medical Education. 2005;39(6):568–72.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Copeland HL, Longworth DL, Hewson MG, Stoller JK. Successful lecturing: a prospective study to validate attributes of the effective medical lecture. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(6):366–71.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Collins J, Mullan B, Holbert J. Evaluation of speakers at a national radiology continuing medical education course. Med Educ Online. 2002;7(17):1–8.

12.

Litin SC, Ende J. The lecture: tips to make your next presentation go better than your last. In: Sa S, ed. Methods of teaching medicine. Philadelphia: ACP Press; 2010:49–60.

13.

Brown G, Manogue M. AMEE medical education guide No. 22: refreshing lecturing: a guide for lecturers. Med Teach. 2001;23(3):231–44.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Newman LR, Lown BA, Jones RN, Johansson A, Schwartzstein RM. Developing a peer assessment of lecturing instrument: lessons learned. Acad Med. 2009;84(8):1104–10.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.PubMedCrossRef

16.

DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.

17.

Beckman TJ. Determining the validity and reliability of clinical assessment scores. In: Henderson M, ed. A Textbook for Internal Medicine Education Programs. Washington, D.C.: Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine and Association of Specialty Professors; 2007:139–46.

18.

Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994:58.

19.

Nation JR, LeUnes AD, Gray M. Student evaluations of teachers of psychology as a function of academic rank. Teach Psychol. 1976;3(4).

20.

Aleamoni LM, Yimer M. An investigation of the relationship between colleague rating, student rating, research productivity, and academic rank in rating instructional effectiveness. J Educ Psychol. 1973;64(3).

21.

Linsky AS, Straus MA. Student evaluations, research productivity, and eminence of college faculty. J High Educ. 1975;46(1)

22.

Levinson W, Rubenstein A. Integrating clinician-educators into Academic Medical Centers: challenges and potential solutions. Acad Med. 2000;75(9):906–12.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Beckman TJ, Mandrekar JN. The interpersonal, cognitive and efficiency domains of clinical teaching: construct validity of a multi-dimensional scale. Med Educ. 2005;39(12):1221–9.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Donnelly MB, Woolliscroft JO. Evaluation of clinical instructors by third-year medical students. Acad Med. 1989;64(3):159–64.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Cohen R, MacRae H, Jamieson C. Teaching effectiveness of surgeons. Am J Surg. 1996;171(6):612–4.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Ratanawongsa N, Thomas PA, Marinopoulos SS, et al. The reported validity and reliability of methods for evaluating continuing medical education: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2008;83(3):274–83.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Tian J, Atkinson NL, Portnoy B, Gold RS. A systematic review of evaluation in formal continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2007;27(1):16–27.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med. 2006;119(2):166. e7-16.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Messick S. Validity. In: Linn RL, ed. Educational Measurement. Phoenix, AZ: Onyx Press; 1993.

30.

Messick S. Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol. 1995;50(9):741–9.CrossRef

31.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.

32.

Downing SM. Validity: On meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37(9):830–7.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Beckman TJ, Cook DA, Mandrekar JN. What is the validity evidence for assessments of clinical teaching? J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(12):1159–64.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–36.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(1):61–7.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Improving Participant Feedback to Continuing Medical Education Presenters in Internal Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Study
verfasst von: Christopher M. Wittich, MD, PharmD
Karen F. Mauck, MD, MS
Jayawant N. Mandrekar, PhD
Karol A. Gluth, BA
Colin P. West, MD, PhD
Scott C. Litin, MD
Thomas J. Beckman, MD
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2012
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1894-3

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Reizdarmsyndrom: Diäten wirksamer als Medikamente

29.04.2024 Reizdarmsyndrom Nachrichten

Bei Reizdarmsyndrom scheinen Diäten, wie etwa die FODMAP-arme oder die kohlenhydratreduzierte Ernährung, effektiver als eine medikamentöse Therapie zu sein. Das hat eine Studie aus Schweden ergeben, die die drei Therapieoptionen im direkten Vergleich analysierte.

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

26.04.2024 Hüft-TEP Nachrichten

Ob bei einer Notfalloperation nach Schenkelhalsfraktur eine Hemiarthroplastik oder eine totale Endoprothese (TEP) eingebaut wird, sollte nicht allein vom Alter der Patientinnen und Patienten abhängen. Auch über 90-Jährige können von der TEP profitieren.

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

25.04.2024 Hypotonie Nachrichten

Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

25.04.2024 Allergien und Intoleranzreaktionen Nachrichten

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVES

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

MEASUREMENTS

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2012

The Effects of Financial Pressures on Adherence and Glucose Control Among Racial/Ethnically Diverse Patients with Diabetes

Instruments Measuring Spirituality in Clinical Research

A Prescription for Song

Electronic Risk Alerts to Improve Primary Care Management of Chest Pain: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Unintended Consequences of Implementing a National Performance Measurement System into Local Practice