• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估者培训对迷你临床评估练习(mini-CEX)评分可靠性和准确性的影响:一项随机对照试验。

Effect of rater training on reliability and accuracy of mini-CEX scores: a randomized, controlled trial.

作者信息

Cook David A, Dupras Denise M, Beckman Thomas J, Thomas Kris G, Pankratz V Shane

机构信息

Office of Education Research, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Jan;24(1):74-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0842-3. Epub 2008 Nov 11.

DOI:10.1007/s11606-008-0842-3
PMID:19002533
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2607488/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Mini-CEX scores assess resident competence. Rater training might improve mini-CEX score interrater reliability, but evidence is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate a rater training workshop using interrater reliability and accuracy.

DESIGN

Randomized trial (immediate versus delayed workshop) and single-group pre/post study (randomized groups combined).

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-two internal medicine clinic preceptors (31 randomized and 21 additional workshop attendees).

INTERVENTION

The workshop included rater error training, performance dimension training, behavioral observation training, and frame of reference training using lecture, video, and facilitated discussion. Delayed group received no intervention until after posttest.

MEASUREMENTS

Mini-CEX ratings at baseline (just before workshop for workshop group), and four weeks later using videotaped resident-patient encounters; mini-CEX ratings of live resident-patient encounters one year preceding and one year following the workshop; rater confidence using mini-CEX.

RESULTS

Among 31 randomized participants, interrater reliabilities in the delayed group (baseline intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.43, follow-up 0.53) and workshop group (baseline 0.40, follow-up 0.43) were not significantly different (p = 0.19). Mean ratings were similar at baseline (delayed 4.9 [95% confidence interval 4.6-5.2], workshop 4.8 [4.5-5.1]) and follow-up (delayed 5.4 [5.0-5.7], workshop 5.3 [5.0-5.6]; p = 0.88 for interaction). For the entire cohort, rater confidence (1 = not confident, 6 = very confident) improved from mean (SD) 3.8 (1.4) to 4.4 (1.0), p = 0.018. Interrater reliability for ratings of live encounters (entire cohort) was higher after the workshop (ICC 0.34) than before (ICC 0.18) but the standard error of measurement was similar for both periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Rater training did not improve interrater reliability or accuracy of mini-CEX scores.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00667940

摘要

背景

迷你临床演练评估(Mini-CEX)分数用于评估住院医师的能力。评估者培训可能会提高Mini-CEX分数的评分者间信度,但目前缺乏相关证据。

目的

使用评分者间信度和准确性评估一个评估者培训工作坊。

设计

随机试验(即时工作坊与延迟工作坊)和单组前后对照研究(随机分组合并)。

地点

学术医疗中心。

参与者

52名内科门诊带教老师(31名随机分组,另外21名参加工作坊)。

干预措施

该工作坊包括评估者误差培训、绩效维度培训、行为观察培训以及使用讲座、视频和小组讨论的参照框架培训。延迟组在测试后才接受干预。

测量指标

基线时(工作坊组在工作坊开始前)以及四周后使用住院医师与患者的录像互动进行Mini-CEX评分;工作坊前一年和后一年对住院医师与患者现场互动的Mini-CEX评分;使用Mini-CEX评估评估者的信心。

结果

在31名随机分组的参与者中,延迟组(基线组内相关系数[ICC]为0.43,随访时为0.53)和工作坊组(基线时为0.40,随访时为0.43)的评分者间信度无显著差异(p = 0.19)。基线时平均评分相似(延迟组4.9[95%置信区间4.6 - 5.2],工作坊组4.8[4.5 - 5.1]),随访时也相似(延迟组5.4[5.0 - 5.7],工作坊组5.3[5.0 - 5.6];交互作用p = 0.88)。对于整个队列,评估者信心(1 = 不自信,6 = 非常自信)从平均(标准差)3.8(1.4)提高到4.4(1.0),p = 0.018。工作坊后对现场互动评分的评分者间信度(整个队列)高于工作坊前(ICC 0.34对ICC 0.18),但两个时期的测量标准误相似。

结论

评估者培训并未提高Mini-CEX分数的评分者间信度或准确性。

临床试验注册

clinicaltrials.gov标识符NCT00667940

相似文献

1
Effect of rater training on reliability and accuracy of mini-CEX scores: a randomized, controlled trial.评估者培训对迷你临床评估练习(mini-CEX)评分可靠性和准确性的影响:一项随机对照试验。
J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Jan;24(1):74-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0842-3. Epub 2008 Nov 11.
2
Does scale length matter? A comparison of nine- versus five-point rating scales for the mini-CEX.量表长度是否重要?迷你临床演练评估的九点量表与五点量表的比较。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009 Dec;14(5):655-64. doi: 10.1007/s10459-008-9147-x. Epub 2008 Nov 26.
3
Development and implementation of a mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX) program to assess the clinical competencies of internal medicine residents: from faculty development to curriculum evaluation.开展并实施迷你临床演练评估(mini-CEX)项目以评估内科住院医师的临床能力:从师资发展到课程评估。
BMC Med Educ. 2013 Feb 26;13:31. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-13-31.
4
The mini-CEX: a method for assessing clinical skills.迷你临床演练评估:一种临床技能评估方法
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Mar 18;138(6):476-81. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-6-200303180-00012.
5
Evaluation of a novel assessment form for observing medical residents: a randomised, controlled trial.评估一种用于观察住院医师的新型评估表:一项随机对照试验。
Med Educ. 2008 Dec;42(12):1234-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03230.x.
6
The mini-CEX (clinical evaluation exercise): a preliminary investigation.迷你临床评估练习(Mini-CEX):一项初步调查。
Ann Intern Med. 1995 Nov 15;123(10):795-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-123-10-199511150-00008.
7
Internal structure of mini-CEX scores for internal medicine residents: factor analysis and generalizability.内科住院医师 mini-CEX 评分的内部结构:因子分析和概括力。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010 Dec;15(5):633-45. doi: 10.1007/s10459-010-9224-9. Epub 2010 Feb 21.
8
The utility of mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: A BEME review: BEME Guide No. 59.迷你临床演练评估在本科和研究生医学教育中的应用:BEME 综述:BEME 指南第 59 号。
Med Teach. 2020 Feb;42(2):125-142. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1652732. Epub 2019 Sep 15.
9
Assessing the Validity of a Multidisciplinary Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise.评估多学科迷你临床评估练习的有效性。
Teach Learn Med. 2018 Apr-Jun;30(2):152-161. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2017.1387553. Epub 2017 Dec 14.
10
More consensus than idiosyncrasy: Categorizing social judgments to examine variability in Mini-CEX ratings.共识多于特质:对社会判断进行分类以检验迷你临床评估练习(Mini-CEX)评分的变异性。
Acad Med. 2014 Nov;89(11):1510-9. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000486.

引用本文的文献

1
Beyond reliability: assessing rater competence when using a behavioural marker system.超越可靠性:使用行为标记系统时评估评分者能力
Adv Simul (Lond). 2024 Dec 31;9(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s41077-024-00329-9.
2
Investigating the accuracy of adjusting for examiner differences in multi-centre Objective Structured Clinical Exams (OSCEs). A simulation study of video-based Examiner Score Comparison and Adjustment (VESCA).研究在多中心客观结构化临床考试(OSCE)中针对考官差异进行调整的准确性。一项基于视频的考官分数比较与调整(VESCA)模拟研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Dec 18;24(1):1466. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06462-3.
3
The Evaluation of Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) for Assessing Neurology Cases Among Postgraduate Medicine Students.用于评估医学研究生神经内科病例的迷你临床评估练习(Mini-CEX)
Cureus. 2024 Nov 13;16(11):e73641. doi: 10.7759/cureus.73641. eCollection 2024 Nov.
4
Frontline assessors' opinions about grading committees in a medicine clerkship.一线评估员对医学实习中评分委员会的看法。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Jun 5;24(1):620. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05604-x.
5
Trainee anaesthetist self-assessment using an entrustment scale in workplace-based assessment.实习麻醉师使用基于工作场所评估的委托量表进行自我评估。
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2024 Jul;52(4):241-249. doi: 10.1177/0310057X241234676. Epub 2024 Apr 22.
6
Implementation of the mini-clinical evaluation exercise in postgraduate Year 1 residency training in emergency medicine: Clinical experience at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.迷你临床评估演练在急诊医学研究生一年级住院医师培训中的实施:长庚纪念医院的临床经验
J Acute Med. 2013 Sep;3(3):110-115. doi: 10.1016/j.jacme.2013.06.004. Epub 2013 Aug 19.
7
Quantifying cognitive and affective impacts of Quizlet on learning outcomes: a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis.量化Quizlet对学习成果的认知和情感影响:系统评价与综合荟萃分析
Front Psychol. 2024 Mar 6;15:1349835. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1349835. eCollection 2024.
8
Faculty Development- Is Some Better Than None?教师发展——有一些是否比没有更好?
MedEdPublish (2016). 2019 Jan 22;8:18. doi: 10.15694/mep.2019.000018.1. eCollection 2019.
9
Tutor-demonstrated feedback in the mini-clinical evaluation exercise.在迷你临床评估练习中由导师示范的反馈。
MedEdPublish (2016). 2020 Jun 23;9:130. doi: 10.15694/mep.2020.000130.1. eCollection 2020.
10
Hawks and Doves: Perceptions and Reality of Faculty Evaluations.鹰派与鸽派:教师评价的认知与现实
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2023 Sep 8;10:23821205231197079. doi: 10.1177/23821205231197079. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.

本文引用的文献

1
Identifying the factors that determine feedback given to undergraduate medical students following formative mini-CEX assessments.确定在形成性迷你临床评估后给予本科医学生反馈的决定因素。
Med Educ. 2008 Jan;42(1):89-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02939.x. Epub 2007 Nov 22.
2
Does feedback matter? Practice-based learning for medical students after a multi-institutional clinical performance examination.反馈重要吗?多机构临床技能考核后医学生基于实践的学习。
Med Educ. 2007 Sep;41(9):857-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02818.x.
3
Use of the mini-clinical evaluation exercise to rate examinee performance on a multiple-station clinical skills examination: a validity study.使用迷你临床评估练习对考生在多站式临床技能考试中的表现进行评分:一项效度研究。
Acad Med. 2006 Oct;81(10 Suppl):S56-60. doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000236514.53194.f4.
4
Assessing the mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise in comparison to a national specialty examination.将小型临床评估练习与全国性专业考试进行比较评估。
Med Educ. 2006 Oct;40(10):950-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02566.x.
5
Enriched rater training using Internet based technologies: a comparison to traditional rater training in a multi-site depression trial.使用基于互联网技术的强化评分员培训:多中心抑郁症试验中与传统评分员培训的比较。
J Psychiatr Res. 2006 Apr;40(3):192-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2005.07.012. Epub 2005 Sep 28.
6
Effects of training intensity on observers' ratings of anxiety, social skills, and alcohol-specific coping skills.训练强度对观察者焦虑评分、社交技能评分及酒精特定应对技能评分的影响。
Behav Res Ther. 2006 Apr;44(4):533-44. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.04.002. Epub 2005 Jun 6.
7
Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends.临床推理研究:过去的历史与当前趋势。
Med Educ. 2005 Apr;39(4):418-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02127.x.
8
Effects of training in direct observation of medical residents' clinical competence: a randomized trial.医学住院医师临床能力直接观察培训的效果:一项随机试验。
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Jun 1;140(11):874-81. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-11-200406010-00008.
9
Raters who pursue different goals give different ratings.追求不同目标的评分者给出的评分也不同。
J Appl Psychol. 2004 Feb;89(1):158-64. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.158.
10
Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings.临床绩效评估中认知、社会和环境方面的偏差来源。
Teach Learn Med. 2003 Fall;15(4):270-92. doi: 10.1207/S15328015TLM1504_11.