Suppr超能文献

评估加拿大医师能力基准(CanMEDS)角色的遇诊卡的可靠性。

The reliability of encounter cards to assess the CanMEDS roles.

机构信息

Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada,

出版信息

Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013 Dec;18(5):987-96. doi: 10.1007/s10459-012-9440-6. Epub 2013 Jan 11.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of a computer-based encounter card (EC) to assess medical students during an emergency medicine rotation. From April 2011 to March 2012, multiple physicians assessed an entire medical school class during their emergency medicine rotation using the CanMEDS framework. At the end of an emergency department shift, an EC was scored (1-10) for each student on Medical Expert, 2 additional Roles, and an overall score. Analysis of 1,819 ECs (155 of 186 students) revealed the following: Collaborator, Manager, Health Advocate and Scholar were assessed on less than 25 % of ECs. On average, each student was assessed 11 times with an inter-rater reliability of 0.6. The largest source of variance was rater bias. A D-study showed that a minimum of 17 ECs were required for a reliability of 0.7. There was moderate to strong correlations between all Roles and overall score; and the factor analysis revealed all items loading on a single factor, accounting for 87 % of the variance. The global assessment of the CanMEDS Roles using ECs has significant variance in estimates of performance, derived from differences between raters. Some Roles are seldom selected for assessment, suggesting that raters have difficulty identifying related performance. Finally, correlation and factor analyses demonstrate that raters are unable to discriminate among Roles and are basing judgments on an overall impression.

摘要

本研究旨在确定基于计算机的急诊实习评估卡(EC)在评估医学生时的可靠性。从 2011 年 4 月至 2012 年 3 月,多位医生使用 CANMEDS 框架在急诊轮转期间对整个医学院班级进行评估。在急诊科轮班结束时,对每位学生的医疗专家、2 个额外角色和总体得分进行 EC 评分(1-10)。对 1819 份 EC (155 名学生中的 155 份)进行分析,结果如下:合作者、经理、健康倡导者和学者在不到 25%的 EC 中得到评估。平均而言,每位学生接受了 11 次评估,评分者之间的可靠性为 0.6。方差最大的来源是评分者偏差。D 研究表明,需要至少 17 份 EC 才能达到 0.7 的可靠性。所有角色与总体得分之间均存在中度至强相关性;因子分析表明,所有项目都加载在一个单一因素上,占方差的 87%。使用 EC 对 CANMEDS 角色的总体评估具有显著的绩效估计方差,源于评分者之间的差异。一些角色很少被选择进行评估,这表明评分者难以确定相关的绩效。最后,相关和因子分析表明,评分者无法区分角色,并且他们的判断基于整体印象。

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