Kalet Adina, Buckvar-Keltz Lynn, Harnik Victoria, Monson Verna, Hubbard Steven, Crowe Ruth, Song Hyuksoon S, Yingling Sandra
a Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Innovation , New York University School of Medicine , New York , NY , USA.
b New York University School of Medicine , New York , NY , USA.
Med Teach. 2017 Mar;39(3):255-261. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1270437. Epub 2016 Dec 30.
To assess the feasibility and utility of measuring baseline professional identity formation (PIF) in a theory-based professionalism curriculum for early medical students.
All 132 entering students completed the professional identity essay (PIE) and the defining issues test (DIT2). Students received score reports with individualized narrative feedback and wrote a structured reflection after a large-group session in which the PIF construct was reviewed. Analysis of PIEs resulted in assignment of a full or transitional PIF stage (1-5). The DIT2 score reflects the proportion of the time students used universal ethical principles to justify a response to 6 moral dilemma cases. Students' reflections were content analyzed.
PIF scores were distributed across stage 2/3, stage 3, stage 3/4, and stage 4. No student scores were in stages 1, 2, 4/5, or 5. The mean DIT2 score was 53% (range 9.7?76.5%); the correlation between PIF stage and DIT score was ρ = 0.18 (p = 0.03). Students who took an analytic approach to the data and demonstrated both awareness that they are novices and anticipation of continued PIF tended to respond more positively to the feedback.
These PIF scores distributed similarly to novice students in other professions. Developmental-theory based PIF and moral reasoning measures are related. Students reflected on these measures in meaningful ways suggesting utility of measuring PIF scores in medical education.
评估在针对早期医学生的基于理论的职业素养课程中测量基线职业身份形成（PIF）的可行性和实用性。
所有132名入学学生完成了职业身份论文（PIE）和界定问题测试（DIT2）。学生收到带有个性化叙述性反馈的分数报告，并在回顾PIF结构的大组会议后撰写结构化反思。对PIE的分析导致分配完整或过渡性的PIF阶段（1 - 5）。DIT2分数反映了学生使用普遍道德原则为对6个道德困境案例的回应进行辩护的时间比例。对学生的反思进行了内容分析。
PIF分数分布在第2/3阶段、第3阶段、第3/4阶段和第4阶段。没有学生分数处于第1阶段、第2阶段、第4/5阶段或第5阶段。DIT2平均分数为53%（范围9.7 - 76.5%）；PIF阶段与DIT分数之间的相关性为ρ = 0.18（p = 0.03）。对数据采用分析方法并表现出既意识到自己是新手又预期PIF会持续发展的学生，往往对反馈的反应更积极。
这些PIF分数的分布与其他专业的新手学生相似。基于发展理论的PIF和道德推理测量方法是相关的。学生以有意义 的方式对这些测量方法进行了反思，表明在医学教育中测量PIF分数具有实用性。
