首页> 外文期刊>Journal of general internal medicine >Assessing the quality of clinical teachers: a systematic review of content and quality of questionnaires for assessing clinical teachers.
【24h】

Assessing the quality of clinical teachers: a systematic review of content and quality of questionnaires for assessing clinical teachers.

机译:评估临床教师的素质:对评估临床教师的问卷的内容和质量进行系统的审查。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Learning in a clinical environment differs from formal educational settings and provides specific challenges for clinicians who are teachers. Instruments that reflect these challenges are needed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of clinical teachers. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the content, validity, and aims of questionnaires used to assess clinical teachers. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC from 1976 up to March 2010. REVIEW METHODS: The searches revealed 54 papers on 32 instruments. Data from these papers were documented by independent researchers, using a structured format that included content of the instrument, validation methods, aims of the instrument, and its setting. RESULTS: Aspects covered by the instruments predominantly concerned the use of teaching strategies (included in 30 instruments), supporter role (29), role modeling (27), and feedback (26). Providing opportunities for clinical learning activities was included in 13 instruments. Most studies referred to literature on good clinical teaching, although they failed to provide a clear description of what constitutes a good clinical teacher. Instrument length varied from 1 to 58 items. Except for two instruments, all had to be completed by clerks/residents. Instruments served to provide formative feedback ( instruments) but were also used for resource allocation, promotion, and annual performance review (14 instruments). All but two studies reported on internal consistency and/or reliability; other aspects of validity were examined less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: No instrument covered all relevant aspects of clinical teaching comprehensively. Validation of the instruments was often limited to assessment of internal consistency and reliability. Available instruments for assessing clinical teachers should be used carefully, especially for consequential decisions. There is a need for more valid comprehensive instruments.
机译:背景:在临床环境中学习不同于正规的教育环境,并且对作为教师的临床医生提出了特殊的挑战。需要使用反映这些挑战的工具来确定临床教师的长处和短处。目的:系统地评估用于评估临床教师的问卷的内容,有效性和目的。数据来源:1976年至2010年3月的MEDLINE,EMBASE,PsycINFO和ERIC。审查方法:搜索发现32具仪器有54篇论文。这些论文的数据由独立研究人员使用结构化格式记录,其中包括仪器的内容,验证方法,仪器的目的及其设置。结果:这些工具所涵盖的各个方面主要涉及教学策略的使用(包括在30个工具中),支持者角色(29),角色模型(27)和反馈(26)。提供临床学习活动的机会包括在13种工具中。大多数研究都参考了有关良好临床教学的文献,尽管未能清晰地说明什么构成了良好的临床教师。乐器长度从1到58项目不等。除两项文书外,所有文书均必须由书记员/居民填写。文书用于提供形成性反馈(文书),但也用于资源分配,提升和年度绩效评估(14篇文书)。除两项研究外,所有研究均报告了内部一致性和/或可靠性。其他有效性方面的检查频率较低。结论:没有一种仪器能全面涵盖临床教学的所有相关方面。仪器的验证通常仅限于评估内部一致性和可靠性。应谨慎使用可用的评估临床教师的工具,尤其是在作出相应决定时。需要更有效的综合手段。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号