Suppr超能文献

评估临床教师的质量:评估临床教师的问卷的内容和质量的系统评价。

Assessing the quality of clinical teachers: a systematic review of content and quality of questionnaires for assessing clinical teachers.

机构信息

Department for Evaluation, Quality and Development of Medical Education, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Dec;25(12):1337-45. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1458-y. Epub 2010 Aug 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Learning in a clinical environment differs from formal educational settings and provides specific challenges for clinicians who are teachers. Instruments that reflect these challenges are needed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of clinical teachers.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the content, validity, and aims of questionnaires used to assess clinical teachers.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC from 1976 up to March 2010.

REVIEW METHODS

The searches revealed 54 papers on 32 instruments. Data from these papers were documented by independent researchers, using a structured format that included content of the instrument, validation methods, aims of the instrument, and its setting.

RESULTS

Aspects covered by the instruments predominantly concerned the use of teaching strategies (included in 30 instruments), supporter role (29), role modeling (27), and feedback (26). Providing opportunities for clinical learning activities was included in 13 instruments. Most studies referred to literature on good clinical teaching, although they failed to provide a clear description of what constitutes a good clinical teacher. Instrument length varied from 1 to 58 items. Except for two instruments, all had to be completed by clerks/residents. Instruments served to provide formative feedback ( instruments) but were also used for resource allocation, promotion, and annual performance review (14 instruments). All but two studies reported on internal consistency and/or reliability; other aspects of validity were examined less frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

No instrument covered all relevant aspects of clinical teaching comprehensively. Validation of the instruments was often limited to assessment of internal consistency and reliability. Available instruments for assessing clinical teachers should be used carefully, especially for consequential decisions. There is a need for more valid comprehensive instruments.

摘要

背景

临床环境中的学习与正规教育环境不同,这对身为教师的临床医生提出了特殊的挑战。需要有反映这些挑战的工具来确定临床教师的优势和劣势。

目的

系统评价评估临床教师的问卷的内容、效度和目的。

数据来源

从 1976 年到 2010 年 3 月,检索 MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO 和 ERIC。

研究方法

搜索共揭示了 54 篇关于 32 种工具的论文。这些论文的数据由独立研究人员使用结构化格式记录,其中包括工具的内容、验证方法、工具的目的及其设置。

结果

工具涵盖的方面主要涉及教学策略的使用(包括 30 种工具)、支持角色(29 种)、榜样作用(27 种)和反馈(26 种)。提供临床学习活动的机会包括在 13 种工具中。虽然大多数研究都参考了关于良好临床教学的文献,但未能清楚说明什么是优秀的临床教师。工具的长度从 1 项到 58 项不等。除了两种工具外,所有工具都需要由住院医师/住院医师完成。这些工具不仅用于提供形成性反馈(18 种工具),还用于资源分配、晋升和年度绩效评估(14 种工具)。除了两种研究外,所有研究都报告了内部一致性和/或可靠性;其他有效性方面的评估则较少。

结论

没有一种工具全面涵盖临床教学的所有相关方面。这些工具的验证往往仅限于评估内部一致性和可靠性。评估临床教师的现有工具应谨慎使用,尤其是在做出重要决定时。需要更有效的全面工具。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d775/2988147/a7eae8ebdd3a/11606_2010_1458_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验