We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clerkship evaluation--what are we measuring?
Medical Teacher 2009 Februrary
BACKGROUND: As society's expectations of physicians change, so must the objectives of training. Professional organizations involved in training now emphasize multiplicity of roles. But how well do we evaluate these multiple roles?
AIMS: To investigate the principal components of evaluation in the Internal Medicine clerkship rotation at the University of Calgary.
METHODS: We performed factor analysis on all evaluation components in the Internal Medicine clerkship rotation, including the in-training evaluation report (ITER), objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and multiple choice questions (MCQ) examination.
RESULTS: We identified three principal components: information processing, professionalism, and declarative knowledge. Both the OSCE and MCQ loaded on a single factor, declarative knowledge. The nine items on the ITER loaded on two factors-information processing and professionalism.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite using 11 evaluation items on three tools, we identified only three principal components of evaluation. Both our MCQ and OSCE appeared to measure declarative knowledge. The latter may be due to the fact that we use standardized patients without clinical findings-such that evaluations are primarily based upon the demonstration of examination routines. Reasons for the lack of discriminant validity of our ITER include overlapping attributes and constant errors, including a halo effect and an error of leniency.
AIMS: To investigate the principal components of evaluation in the Internal Medicine clerkship rotation at the University of Calgary.
METHODS: We performed factor analysis on all evaluation components in the Internal Medicine clerkship rotation, including the in-training evaluation report (ITER), objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and multiple choice questions (MCQ) examination.
RESULTS: We identified three principal components: information processing, professionalism, and declarative knowledge. Both the OSCE and MCQ loaded on a single factor, declarative knowledge. The nine items on the ITER loaded on two factors-information processing and professionalism.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite using 11 evaluation items on three tools, we identified only three principal components of evaluation. Both our MCQ and OSCE appeared to measure declarative knowledge. The latter may be due to the fact that we use standardized patients without clinical findings-such that evaluations are primarily based upon the demonstration of examination routines. Reasons for the lack of discriminant validity of our ITER include overlapping attributes and constant errors, including a halo effect and an error of leniency.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app