> Detailanzeige

Bhanji, Farhan; Gottesman, Ronald; de Grave, Willem; Steinert, Yvonne; Winer, Laura R.

The Retrospective Pre–Post: A Practical Method to Evaluate Learning from an Educational Program

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: The Retrospective Pre–Post: A Practical Method to Evaluate Learning from an Educational Program
  • Beteiligte: Bhanji, Farhan; Gottesman, Ronald; de Grave, Willem; Steinert, Yvonne; Winer, Laura R.
  • Erschienen: Wiley, 2012
  • Erschienen in: Academic Emergency Medicine
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01270.x
  • ISSN: 1069-6563; 1553-2712
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: <jats:sec><jats:label /><jats:p>ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2012; 19:189–194 © 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p><jats:bold>Objectives: </jats:bold> Program evaluation remains a critical but underutilized step in medical education. This study compared traditional and retrospective pre–post self‐assessment methods to objective learning measures to assess which correlated better to actual learning.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Methods: </jats:bold> Forty‐seven medical students participated in a 4‐hour pediatric resuscitation course. They completed pre and post self‐assessments on pediatric resuscitation and two distracter topics. Postcourse, students also retrospectively rated their understanding as it was precourse (the “retrospective pre” instrument). Changes in traditional and retrospective pre‐ to postcourse self‐assessment measures were compared to an objectives‐based multiple‐choice exam.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Results: </jats:bold> The traditional pre to post self‐assessment means showed an increase from 1.9 of 5 to 3.7 of 5 (p &lt; 0.001); the retrospective pre to post scores also increased from 1.9 of 5 to 3.7 of 5 (p &lt; 0.001). Although the group means were the same, individual participants demonstrated a response shift by either increasing or decreasing their traditional pre to retrospective pre scores. Scores on the 22‐item objective multiple choice test also increased, from a median score of 13.0 to 18.0 (p &lt; 0.001). There was no correlation between the change in self‐assessments and objective measures as demonstrated by a Spearman correlation of −0.02 and −0.13 for the traditional and retrospective pre–post methods, respectively. Students reported fewer changes on the two distracters using the retrospective pre–post versus the traditional method (11 vs. 29).</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Conclusions: </jats:bold> Students were able to accurately identify, but not quantify, learning using either traditional or retrospective pre–post “self‐assessment” measures. Retrospective pre–post self‐assessment was more accurate in excluding perceived change in understanding of subject matter that was not taught.</jats:p></jats:sec>
  • Zugangsstatus: Freier Zugang