药学和医学教育文献中的教育测试的效度和信度。
Educational testing validity and reliability in pharmacy and medical education literature.
机构信息
College of Pharmacy, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio ; Cleveland Clinic Marymount Hospital, Garfield Heights, Ohio ; University of Toledo College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Toledo, Ohio.
University of Toledo College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Toledo, Ohio.
出版信息
Am J Pharm Educ. 2013 Dec 16;77(10):213. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7710213.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate and compare the reliability and validity of educational testing reported in pharmacy education journals to medical education literature.
METHODS
Descriptions of validity evidence sources (content, construct, criterion, and reliability) were extracted from articles that reported educational testing of learners' knowledge, skills, and/or abilities. Using educational testing, the findings of 108 pharmacy education articles were compared to the findings of 198 medical education articles.
RESULTS
For pharmacy educational testing, 14 articles (13%) reported more than 1 validity evidence source while 83 articles (77%) reported 1 validity evidence source and 11 articles (10%) did not have evidence. Among validity evidence sources, content validity was reported most frequently. Compared with pharmacy education literature, more medical education articles reported both validity and reliability (59%; p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
While there were more scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) articles in pharmacy education compared to medical education, validity, and reliability reporting were limited in the pharmacy education literature.
目的
评估和比较药学教育期刊中报道的教育测试的可靠性和有效性与医学教育文献。
方法
从报告学习者知识、技能和/或能力教育测试的文章中提取有效性证据来源（内容、结构、标准和可靠性）的描述。使用教育测试，将 108 篇药学教育文章的研究结果与 198 篇医学教育文章的研究结果进行比较。
结果
对于药学教育测试，有 14 篇文章（13%）报告了超过 1 个有效性证据来源，而 83 篇文章（77%）报告了 1 个有效性证据来源，11 篇文章（10%）没有证据。在有效性证据来源中，内容有效性的报告最为频繁。与药学教育文献相比，更多的医学教育文章报告了有效性和可靠性（59%；p<0.001）。
结论
尽管药学教育中的教学学术（SoTL）文章比医学教育多，但药学教育文献中对有效性和可靠性的报告有限。
Zotero 插件