Clinical Skills Training Centre, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
BMC Med Educ. 2023 Jan 25;23(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04033-6.
The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) is widely used to appraise the methodological quality of medical education studies. However, the MERSQI lacks some criteria which could facilitate better quality assessment. The objective of this study is to achieve consensus among experts on: (1) the MERSQI scoring system and the relative importance of each domain (2) modifications of the MERSQI.
A modified Delphi technique was used to achieve consensus among experts in the field of medical education. The initial item pool contained all items from MERSQI and items added in our previous published work. Each Delphi round comprised a questionnaire and, after the first iteration, an analysis and feedback report. We modified the quality instruments' domains, items and sub-items and re-scored items/domains based on the Delphi panel feedback.
A total of 12 experts agreed to participate and were sent the first and second-round questionnaires. First round: 12 returned of which 11 contained analysable responses; second-round: 10 returned analysable responses. We started with seven domains with an initial item pool of 12 items and 38 sub-items. No change in the number of domains or items resulted from the Delphi process; however, the number of sub-items increased from 38 to 43 across the two Delphi rounds. In Delphi-2: eight respondents gave 'study design' the highest weighting while 'setting' was given the lowest weighting by all respondents. There was no change in the domains' average weighting score and ranks between rounds.
The final criteria list and the new domain weighting score of the Modified MERSQI (MMERSQI) was satisfactory to all respondents. We suggest that the MMERSQI, in building on the success of the MERSQI, may help further establish a reference standard of quality measures for many medical education studies.
医学教育研究质量工具(MERSQI)被广泛用于评估医学教育研究的方法学质量。然而,MERSQI 缺乏一些可以促进更好质量评估的标准。本研究的目的是在医学教育领域的专家中就以下内容达成共识:(1)MERSQI 的评分系统和每个领域的相对重要性;(2)MERSQI 的修改。
采用改良 Delphi 技术在医学教育领域的专家中达成共识。初始项目池包含 MERSQI 的所有项目以及我们之前发表的工作中添加的项目。每个 Delphi 轮包括一份问卷,在第一轮之后,还有一份分析和反馈报告。我们修改了质量工具的领域、项目和子项目,并根据 Delphi 小组的反馈重新对项目/领域进行评分。
共有 12 名专家同意参与并收到了第一轮和第二轮问卷。第一轮:12 人回复,其中 11 人回复中有可分析的意见;第二轮:10 人回复中有可分析的意见。我们从七个领域开始,初始项目池中有 12 个项目和 38 个子项目。德尔菲过程没有导致领域或项目数量发生变化;然而,两轮德尔菲过程中,子项目的数量从 38 个增加到 43 个。在德尔菲 2 中:8 位受访者将“研究设计”赋予最高权重,而所有受访者都将“设置”赋予最低权重。两轮之间,各领域的平均权重评分和排名没有变化。
最终的标准清单和新的修改后医学教育研究质量工具(MMERSQI)的领域权重评分令所有受访者满意。我们建议,MMERSQI 在 MERSQI 成功的基础上,可能有助于进一步为许多医学教育研究建立质量措施的参考标准。