• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

本科医学课程评估标准的衡量:AIM工具的开发与验证

Measuring assessment standards in undergraduate medical programs: Development and validation of AIM tool.

作者信息

Sajjad Madiha, Khan Rehan Ahmed, Yasmeen Rahila

机构信息

Dr. Madiha Sajjad, FCPS, MHPE. Department of Pathology, Riphah International University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Dr. Rehan Ahmed Khan, FCPS, FRCS, MHPE. Department of Surgery, Riphah International University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

出版信息

Pak J Med Sci. 2018 Jan-Feb;34(1):164-169. doi: 10.12669/pjms.341.14354.

DOI:10.12669/pjms.341.14354
PMID:29643900
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5857005/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To develop a tool to evaluate faculty perceptions of assessment quality in an undergraduate medical program.

METHODS

The Assessment Implementation Measure (AIM) tool was developed by a mixed method approach. A preliminary questionnaire developed through literature review was submitted to a panel of 10 medical education experts for a three-round 'Modified Delphi technique'. Panel agreement of > 75% was considered the criterion for inclusion of items in the questionnaire. Cognitive pre-testing of five faculty members was conducted. Pilot study was done with 30 randomly selected faculty members. Content validity index (CVI) was calculated for individual items (I-CVI) and composite scale (S-CVI). Cronbach's alpha was calculated to determine the internal consistency reliability of the tool.

RESULTS

The final AIM tool had 30 items after the Delphi process. S-CVI was 0.98 with the S-CVI/Avg method and 0.86 by S-CVI/UA method, suggesting good content validity. Cut-off value of < 0.9 I-CVI was taken as criterion for item deletion. Cognitive pre-testing revealed good item interpretation. Cronbach's alpha calculated for the AIM was 0.9, whereas Cronbach's alpha for the four domains ranged from 0.67 to 0.80.

CONCLUSIONS

'AIM' is a relevant and useful instrument with good content validity and reliability of results, and may be used to evaluate the teachers´ perceptions about assessment quality.

摘要

目的

开发一种工具,用于评估本科医学项目中教师对评估质量的看法。

方法

采用混合方法开发评估实施措施(AIM)工具。通过文献综述制定的初步问卷提交给10位医学教育专家组成的小组,采用三轮“改良德尔菲技术”。小组中超过75%的人达成一致被视为问卷项目纳入标准。对5名教师进行了认知预测试。对30名随机挑选的教师进行了试点研究。计算了单个项目的内容效度指数(I-CVI)和综合量表的内容效度指数(S-CVI)。计算了克朗巴哈系数以确定该工具的内部一致性信度。

结果

经过德尔菲法后,最终的AIM工具包含30个项目。采用S-CVI/Avg方法时S-CVI为0.98,采用S-CVI/UA方法时为0.86,表明内容效度良好。以I-CVI<0.9作为项目删除标准。认知预测试显示项目解释良好。AIM计算的克朗巴哈系数为0.9,而四个领域的克朗巴哈系数在0.67至0.80之间。

结论

“AIM”是一种相关且有用的工具,具有良好的内容效度和结果信度,可用于评估教师对评估质量的看法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8a42/5857005/5403ed658e0b/PJMS-34-164-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8a42/5857005/5403ed658e0b/PJMS-34-164-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8a42/5857005/5403ed658e0b/PJMS-34-164-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Measuring assessment standards in undergraduate medical programs: Development and validation of AIM tool.本科医学课程评估标准的衡量:AIM工具的开发与验证
Pak J Med Sci. 2018 Jan-Feb;34(1):164-169. doi: 10.12669/pjms.341.14354.
2
Curriculum implementation challenges: Development and validation of an integrated curriculum implementation challenges tool.课程实施挑战:一种综合课程实施挑战工具的开发与验证
Pak J Med Sci. 2024 Jan-Feb;40(1Part-I):89-94. doi: 10.12669/pjms.40.1.7258.
3
Psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire to evaluate organizational capacity development for faculty development programs.一份用于评估教师发展项目组织能力发展的问卷的心理测量学评估。
J Educ Health Promot. 2020 Sep 28;9:233. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_292_20. eCollection 2020.
4
Development and validation of questionnaire to assess exposure of children to enteric infections in the rural northwest Ethiopia.评估埃塞俄比亚西北部农村儿童肠道感染暴露情况的问卷的制定和验证。
Sci Rep. 2022 Apr 25;12(1):6740. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-10811-x.
5
International Hip Outcome Tool (12-items) as health-related quality-of-life measure in osteoarthritis: validation of Greek version.国际髋关节结局工具(12项)作为骨关节炎中与健康相关的生活质量测量工具:希腊语版本的验证
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 May 27;4(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-00207-8.
6
Collaboration cognizance: Development of a self-assessment tool to measure intra-professional collaborative practices (IPCP) in postgraduate medical residents at tertiary care hospitals.协作认知:一种测量三级医院研究生住院医师专业间协作实践(IPCP)的自我评估工具的开发。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Jul 19;24(1):771. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05759-7.
7
Development and preliminary testing of the cancer-related fatigue comprehensive assessment scale in cancer survivors.癌症幸存者相关疲劳综合评估量表的制定及初步测试。
J Clin Nurs. 2023 Apr;32(7-8):1186-1217. doi: 10.1111/jocn.16272. Epub 2022 Mar 13.
8
Development and validation of a novel questionnaire regarding vision screening among preschool teachers in Malaysia.马来西亚学前教师视力筛查新问卷的开发与验证
Int J Ophthalmol. 2024 Jun 18;17(6):1102-1109. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2024.06.16. eCollection 2024.
9
Development and validation of the AMEET inventory: An instrument measuring medical faculty members' perceptions of their educational environment.AMEET量表的编制与验证:一种衡量医学教师对其教育环境看法的工具。
Med Teach. 2015 Jul;37(7):660-669. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.947935. Epub 2014 Aug 26.
10
Translation, cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of the "Family Management Measure" among Iranian families with a child with a chronic disease.“家庭管理量表”在伊朗患有慢性病儿童家庭中的翻译、文化调适及初步心理测量学评估
Electron Physician. 2018 Jun 25;10(6):6942-6950. doi: 10.19082/6942. eCollection 2018 Jun.

引用本文的文献

1
Impact of COVID Pandemic and Hybrid teaching on Final year MBBS students' End of clerkship Exam performance.新冠疫情和混合式教学对医学学士最后一年临床实习考试成绩的影响。
Pak J Med Sci. 2022 Jan-Feb;38(1):113-117. doi: 10.12669/pjms.38.1.4645.
2
Development and validation of teacher and student questionnaires measuring inhibitors of curriculum viability.开发和验证教师和学生问卷,以测量课程可行性的抑制剂。
BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jul 28;21(1):405. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02843-0.
3
Technology Enhanced Assessment (TEA) in COVID 19 Pandemic.

本文引用的文献

1
Making sense of Cronbach's alpha.理解克朗巴哈系数。
Int J Med Educ. 2011 Jun 27;2:53-55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
2
Development of an instrument to measure medical students' perceptions of the assessment environment: initial validation.一种用于测量医学生对评估环境认知的工具的开发:初步验证
Med Educ Online. 2015 Oct 27;20:28612. doi: 10.3402/meo.v20.28612. eCollection 2015.
3
Medical School Hotline: Liaison Committee on Medical Education Accreditation: Part I: The Accreditation Process.医学院热线:医学教育联络委员会认证:第一部分:认证过程。
新冠疫情中的技术增强评估(TEA)
Pak J Med Sci. 2020 May;36(COVID19-S4):S108-S110. doi: 10.12669/pjms.36.COVID19-S4.2795.
Hawaii J Med Public Health. 2015 Sep;74(9):311-4.
4
Designing an evaluation framework for WFME basic standards for medical education.为世界医学教育联合会医学教育基本标准设计一个评估框架。
Med Teach. 2016;38(3):291-6. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1031737. Epub 2015 Apr 29.
5
An instrument for evaluating clinical teaching in Japan: content validity and cultural sensitivity.日本临床教学评估工具:内容效度与文化敏感性
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Aug 28;14:179. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-179.
6
Development and validation of the AMEET inventory: An instrument measuring medical faculty members' perceptions of their educational environment.AMEET量表的编制与验证:一种衡量医学教师对其教育环境看法的工具。
Med Teach. 2015 Jul;37(7):660-669. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.947935. Epub 2014 Aug 26.
7
Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87.为教育研究编制问卷:医学教育促进与发展协会指南第87号
Med Teach. 2014 Jun;36(6):463-74. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.889814. Epub 2014 Mar 24.
8
Development of the clinical learning evaluation questionnaire for undergraduate clinical education: factor structure, validity, and reliability study.临床本科教学学习评估问卷的开发:结构因素、效度和信度研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Mar 4;14:44. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-44.
9
Necessity of accreditation standards for quality assurance of medical basic sciences.医学基础科学质量保证认证标准的必要性。
Iran J Public Health. 2013 Jan 1;42(Supple1):147-54. Print 2013.
10
The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations.内容效度指数:你确定你知道所报告的内容吗?评论与建议。
Res Nurs Health. 2006 Oct;29(5):489-97. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147.