Center for Research and Innovation in Medical Education, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Wenckebach Institute, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Perspect Med Educ. 2012 Nov;1(4):172-179. doi: 10.1007/s40037-012-0023-2. Epub 2012 Sep 18.
Students' perceptions of teaching quality are vital for quality assurance purposes. An increasingly used, department-independent instrument is the (Cleveland) clinical teaching effectiveness instrument (CTEI). Although the CTEI was developed carefully and its validity and reliability confirmed, we noted an opportunity for improvement given an intermingling in its rating scales: the labels of the answering scales refer to both frequency and quality of teaching behaviours. Our aim was to investigate whether frequency and quality scores on the CTEI items differed. A sample of 112 residents anonymously completed the CTEI with separate 5-point rating scales for frequency and quality. Differences between frequency and quality scores were analyzed using paired t tests. Quality was, on average, rated higher than frequency, with significant differences for ten out of 15 items. The mean scores differed significantly in favour of quality. As the effect size was large, the difference in mean scores was substantial. Since quality was generally rated higher than frequency, the authors recommend distinguishing frequency from quality. This distinction helps to obtain unambiguous outcomes, which may be conducive to providing concrete and accurate feedback, improving faculty development and making fair decisions concerning promotion, tenure or salary.
学生对教学质量的看法对于质量保证至关重要。一种越来越被使用的、与部门无关的工具是（克利夫兰）临床教学效果工具（CTEI）。尽管 CTEI 是经过精心开发的，并已确认其有效性和可靠性，但我们注意到，由于其评分量表的混合，存在改进的机会：回答量表的标签既涉及教学行为的频率，也涉及质量。我们的目的是调查 CTEI 项目的频率和质量评分是否存在差异。112 名住院医师匿名完成了 CTEI，对频率和质量使用了单独的 5 分制评分量表。使用配对 t 检验分析了频率和质量评分之间的差异。质量的平均评分高于频率，在 15 个项目中有 10 个项目存在显著差异。质量的平均得分明显更高。由于效应量较大，平均得分的差异很大。由于质量通常比频率评分更高，因此作者建议区分频率和质量。这种区分有助于获得明确的结果，这可能有助于提供具体和准确的反馈，促进教师发展，并在晋升、终身教职或工资方面做出公平的决策。
