...
首页> 外文期刊>Medical education >Making use of contrasting participant views of the same encounter.
【24h】

Making use of contrasting participant views of the same encounter.

机译:利用相同遭遇的对比参与者观点。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

CONTEXT: The practice of medicine involves many stakeholders (or participant groups such as patients, doctors and trainees). Based on their respective goals, perceptions and understandings, and on what is being measured, these stakeholders may have dramatically different viewpoints of the same event. There are many ways to characterise what occurred in a clinical encounter; these include an oral presentation (faculty perspective), a written note (trainee perspective), and the patient's perspective. In the present study, we employed two established theories as frameworks with the purpose of assessing the extent to which different views of the same clinical encounter (a three-component, Year 2 medical student objective structured clinical examination [OSCE] station) are similar to or differ from one another. METHODS: We performed univariate comparisons between the individual items on each of the three components of the OSCE: the standardised patient (SP) checklist (patient perspective); the post-encounter form (trainee perspective), and the oral presentation rating form (faculty perspective). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the three-component station was used to assess the fit of the three-factor (three-viewpoint) model. We also compared tercile performance across these three views as a form of extreme groups analysis. RESULTS: Results from the CFA yielded a measurement model with reasonable fit. Moderate correlations between the three components of the station were observed. Individual trainee performance, as measured by tercile score, varied across components of the station. CONCLUSIONS: Our work builds on research in fields outside medicine, with results yielding small to moderate correlations between different perspectives (and measurements) of the same event (SP checklist, post-encounter form and oral presentation rating form). We believe obtaining multiple perspectives of the same encounter provides a more valid measure of a student's clinical performance.
机译:背景:医学实践涉及许多利益相关者(或患者,医生和受训人员等参与者群体)。根据各自的目标,看法和理解以及所衡量的内容,这些利益相关者对于同一事件可能会有截然不同的观点。有许多方法可以描述临床遭遇中发生的情况;其中包括口头陈述(教师观点),书面笔记(学员观点)以及患者的观点。在本研究中,我们采用了两种既定的理论作为框架,目的是评估同一临床遭遇的不同观点(三成分,2年级医学生客观结构化临床检查[OSCE]站)的程度与或彼此不同。方法:我们在OSCE的三个组成部分中的每个组成部分之间进行了单变量比较:标准化患者(SP)检查表(患者角度);遭遇后表格(见习学员观点)和口头陈述评分表(教师观点)。三成分站的验证性因素分析(CFA)用于评估三因素(三视点)模型的拟合度。我们还比较了这三种观点的出色表现,这是极端群体分析的一种形式。结果:CFA的结果产生了一个合理拟合的测量模型。观测到该站的三个组成部分之间存在适度的相关性。各个受训者的表现(以可计分数来衡量)在工作站的各个组成部分中有所不同。结论:我们的工作建立在医学以外领域的研究基础之上,结果在同一事件(SP清单,-后形式和口头陈述评级形式)的不同观点(和度量)之间产生了小到中等的相关性。我们相信,获得相同遭遇的多个视角可以更有效地衡量学生的临床表现。

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