Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaft und Kunst, Göttingen, Germany.
Hannover Medical School, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hannover, Germany.
GMS J Med Educ. 2021 Sep 15;38(6):Doc105. doi: 10.3205/zma001501. eCollection 2021.
Emergency medical services are characterized by a high pressure to act. Dealing with trainees is a challenge. It is known, that the use of power in education subsists: power can be applied in a participative and restrictive way. We investigated the transferability of existing scales to the education system of Emergency medical service trainees. We hypothesized: a restrictive (a) and participative (b) use of power, can be demonstrated in Emergency medical service training, (c) the use of power by educators, who are responsible for theoretical learning, and instructors, who accompany trainees in real-life emergencies, are different and (d) the assessed participatory and restrictive use of power by trainers is negatively correlated. In a cross-sectional study, 206 trainees of Emergency medical service schools completed a questionnaire. The survey consists of 35 power related items regarding medical educators and practical instructors. Differences in the dimensions of power application were tested. The effect size and the correlation between power dimension were calculated. The reliability of the scales was .92 (practical instructor) and .89 (medical educator) by removing one item. All subscales showed values with higher Cronbach's alpha than .68. Application of participative power differs (p<.00) between practical instructors (mean 64.7; SD 20.3) and medical educators (mean 55.3; SD 17.8). The participatory and the restrictive use of power correlated for medical educators significant negatively (r=-.48; p<.01). In both educator and instructor groups the use of participative power had a greater agreement that the use of restrictive techniques. The practical instructors used participative power slightly more often that did educators due to the dependency on the trainee as a team member. The context of the scales partially overlaps with other descriptions such as leadership and instructor quality.
紧急医疗服务的特点是行动压力大。与学员打交道是一项挑战。众所周知，教育中存在权力的运用：权力可以以参与性和限制性的方式运用。我们调查了现有的量表在紧急医疗服务学员教育系统中的可转移性。我们假设：（a）教育者的限制性和（b）参与性权力的使用，可以在紧急医疗服务培训中得到证明，（c）负责理论学习的教育者和在现实紧急情况中陪伴学员的指导员使用的权力不同，（d）评估的培训师的参与性和限制性权力使用呈负相关。 在一项横断面研究中，206 名紧急医疗服务学校的学员完成了一份问卷。该调查包括 35 个与医学教育者和实践指导员有关的权力相关项目。测试了权力运用维度的差异。计算了权力维度的效应大小和相关性。通过删除一个项目，量表的可靠性为.92（实践指导员）和.89（医学教育者）。所有子量表的 Cronbach's alpha 值均高于.68。实践指导员（平均 64.7；SD 20.3）和医学教育者（平均 55.3；SD 17.8）之间参与性权力的应用存在差异（p<.00）。医学教育者的参与性和限制性权力使用呈显著负相关（r=-.48；p<.01）。在教育者和指导员组中，参与性权力的使用与限制性技术的使用具有更大的一致性。由于实践指导员依赖学员作为团队成员，因此他们比教育者更频繁地使用参与性权力。这些量表的上下文与领导力和指导员素质等其他描述部分重叠。
