ABSTRACT
Background: Feedback is one of the most important tools to improve teaching in medical education. Aim: To develop an instrument to assess the performance of clinical postgraduate teachers in medical specialties. Material and Methods: A qualitative methodology consisting in interviews and focus-groups followed by a quantitative methodology to generate consensus, was employed. After generating the instrument, psychometric tests were performed to assess the construct validity (factor analysis) and reliability (Cronbachs alpha). Results: Experts in medical education, teachers and residents of a medical school participated in interviews and focus groups. With this information, 26 categories (79 items) were proposed and reduced to 14 items (Likert scale 1-5) by an experts Delphi panel, generating the MEDUC-PG14 survey, which was answered by 123 residents from different programs of medical specialties. Construct validity was carried out. Factor analysis showed three domains: Teaching and evaluation, respectful behavior towards patients and health care team, and providing feedback. The global score was 4.46 ± 0.94 (89% of the maximum). One teachers strength, as evaluated by their residents was respectful behavior with 4.85 ± 0.42 (97% of the maximum). Providing feedback obtained 4.09 ± 1.0 points (81.8% of the maximum). MEDUC-PG14 survey had a Cronbachs alpha coefficient of 0.947. Conclusions: MEDUC-PG14 survey is a useful and reliable guide for teacher evaluation in medical specialty programs. Also provides feedback to improve educational skills of postgraduate clinical teachers.
Subject(s)
Humans , Education, Medical/standards , Faculty, Medical/standards , Research Design/standards , Focus Groups , Interviews as Topic , Psychometrics , Qualitative Research , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires , Teaching/methods , Teaching/standardsABSTRACT
Training of postgraduate medical specialty program managers (PMSPM) is essential for the proper development of their programs. Aim: To identify the main training needs of PMSPM at a medical school. Material and Methods: A mixed-methodology approach was implemented including focus group/interviews and the administration of the Program Managers Training Needs Assessment Questionnaire (PROMANAQ) developed by an expert panel with 59 items (with two sections: relevance/performance-self-perception). Higher priority was assigned to items with high relevance and low performance. Results: Forty five PMSPM completed the PROMANAQ (81.8% response rate). Both sections of PROMANAQ were highly reliable (Cronbach alpha of 0.95/0.97 for relevance/performance-self-perception, respectively). The items with higher priority value were evaluation of clinical educators, evaluation of teaching programs and accreditation of programs. Ten PMSPM were included in the focus group (18.2% of the universe). The findings of the qualitative component were concordant with the areas explored in the questionnaire. Conclusions: The PROMANAQ is valid and reliable to identify the training needs of PMSPM. The views of PMSPM must be taken into account for faculty development planning.
Subject(s)
Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Education, Continuing/organization & administration , Faculty , Inservice Training/methods , Schools, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Chile , Needs Assessment , UniversitiesABSTRACT
Background: The Postgraduate Hospital Education Environment Measure (PHEEM) questionnaire, is a valid and reliable instrument to measure the educational environment (EE) in postgraduate medical education. Aim: To evaluate the EE perceived by the residents of a postgraduate training program using the PHEEM. Material and Methods: The PHEEM was applied in 2010-2011 in 35 specialty programs. We calculated their individual results and compared means of both global and individual domain scores of the PHEEM, by gender, university of origin and nationality. Cronbach's alpha coefficients and D study (Generalizability theory) were performed for reliability. Results: Three hundred eighteen residents were surveyed (75.7% of the total universe). The mean score of the PHEEM was 105.09 ± 22.46 (65.7% of the maximal score) which is considered a positive EE. The instrument is highly reliable (Cronbach's alpha = 0.934). The D study found that 15 subjects are required to obtain reliable results (G coefficient = 0.813). There were no significant differences between gender and university of origin. Foreigners evaluated better the EE than Chileans and racism was not perceived. The programs showed a safe physical environment and teachers with good clinical skills. The negative aspects perceived were a lack of information about working hours, insufficient academic counseling, and scanty time left for extracurricular activities. Conclusions: This questionnaire allowed us to identify positive aspects of the EE, and areas to be improved in the specialty programs. The PHEEM is a useful instrument to evaluate the EE in Spanish-speaking participants of medical specialty programs.