Ehlers Jan P, Kaap-Fröhlich Sylvia, Mahler Cornelia, Scherer Theresa, Huber Marion
Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Health, Chair of Didactics and Educational Research in Health Science, Witten, Germany.
University of Zurich, Faculty of Medicine, Dean's Office for Student Affairs, Zurich, Switzerland.
GMS J Med Educ. 2017 Aug 15;34(3):Doc36. doi: 10.3205/zma001113. eCollection 2017.
More and more institutions worldwide and in German-speaking countries are developing and establishing interprofessional seminars in undergraduate education of health professions. In order to evaluate the different didactic approaches and different outcomes regarding the anticipated interprofessional competencies, it is necessary to apply appropriate instruments. Cross-cultural instruments are particularly helpful for international comparability. The Interprofessional Education working group of the German Medical Association (GMA) aims at identifying existing instruments for the evaluation of interprofessional education in order to make recommendations for German-speaking countries. Systematic literature research was performed on the websites of international interprofessional organisations (CAIPE, EIPEN, AIPEN), as well as in the PubMed and Cinahl databases. Reviews focusing on quantitative instruments to evaluate competencies according to the modified Kirkpatrick competency levels were searched for. Psychometrics, language/country and setting, in which the instrument was applied, were recorded. Six reviews out of 73 literature research hits were included. A large number of instruments were identified; however, their psychometrics and the applied setting were very heterogeneous. The instruments can mainly be assigned to Kirkpatrick levels 1, 2a & 2b. Most instruments have been developed in English but their psychometrics were not always reported rigorously. Only very few instruments are available in German. It is difficult to find appropriate instruments in German. Internationally, there are different approaches and objectives in the measurement and evaluation of interprofessional competencies. The question arises whether it makes sense to translate existing instruments or to go through the lengthy process of developing new ones. The evaluation of interprofessional seminars with quantitative instruments remains mainly on Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2. Levels 3 and 4 can probably only be assessed with qualitative or mixed methods. German language instruments are necessary.
全球范围内以及德语国家越来越多的机构正在健康职业本科教育中开展并设立跨专业研讨会。为了评估不同的教学方法以及关于预期跨专业能力的不同成果，有必要应用合适的工具。跨文化工具对于国际可比性尤其有帮助。德国医学协会（GMA）的跨专业教育工作组旨在识别现有的跨专业教育评估工具，以便为德语国家提供建议。在国际跨专业组织（CAIPE、EIPEN、AIPEN）的网站以及PubMed和Cinahl数据库中进行了系统的文献研究。搜索了侧重于根据修改后的柯克帕特里克能力水平评估能力的定量工具的综述。记录了工具的心理测量学、语言/国家以及应用该工具的环境。在73篇文献研究结果中纳入了6篇综述。识别出了大量工具；然而，它们的心理测量学和应用环境非常多样化。这些工具主要可归为柯克帕特里克水平1、2a和2b。大多数工具是用英语开发的，但它们的心理测量学报告并不总是很严谨。只有极少数工具是德语的。很难找到合适的德语工具。在国际上，跨专业能力的测量和评估有不同的方法和目标。出现的问题是，翻译现有工具还是经历开发新工具的漫长过程是否有意义。用定量工具对跨专业研讨会的评估主要仍处于柯克帕特里克水平1和2。水平3和4可能只能用定性或混合方法进行评估。需要德语工具。
