E-learning and deliberate practice for oral case presentation skills: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral case presentations are critical for patient care and student assessment. The best method to prepare early medical students for oral presentations is unknown. AIM: We aimed to develop and evaluate a curriculum of on-line learning and deliberate practice to improve pre-clinical students' case presentation skills. METHODS: We developed a web-based, interactive curriculum emphasizing conciseness and clinical reasoning. Using a waitlist control design, we randomly assigned groups of second-year students to receive the curriculum in December 2010 or in April 2011. We evaluated their presentations at three time points. We also examined the performance of an untrained class of students as a historical comparison. RESULTS: We evaluated 132 second-year medical students at three time points. After the curriculum, mean scores of the intervention students improved from 60.2% to 70.1%, while scores of the waitlist control students improved less, from 61.8% to 64.5% (p < 0.01 for between-group difference in improvement). Once all students had received the curriculum, mean scores for the intervention and waitlist control students rose to 77.8% and 78.4%, respectively, compared to 68.1% for the untrained comparison students (p < 0.0001 compared to all curriculum students). CONCLUSION: An on-line curriculum followed by deliberate practice improved students' oral presentation skills.

Comparison of checklist and anchored global rating instruments for performance rating of simulated pediatric emergencies.

PURPOSE: To compare the psychometric performance of two rating instruments used to assess trainee performance in three clinical scenarios. METHODS: This study was part of a two-phase, randomized trial with a wait-list control condition assessing the effectiveness of a pediatric emergency medicine curriculum targeting general emergency medicine residents. Residents received 6 hours of instruction either before or after the first assessment. Separate pairs of raters completed either a dichotomous checklist for each of three cases or the Global Performance Assessment Tool (GPAT), an anchored multidimensional scale. A fully crossed person×rater×case generalizability study was conducted. The effect of training year on performance is assessed using multivariate analysis of variance. RESULTS: The person and person×case components accounted for most of the score variance for both instruments. Using either instrument, scores demonstrated a small but significant increase as training level increased when analyzed using a multivariate analysis of variance. The inter-rater reliability coefficient was >0.9 for both instruments. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that our checklist and anchored global rating instrument performed in a psychometrically similar fashion with high reliability. As long as proper attention is given to instrument design and testing and rater training, checklists and anchored assessment scales can produce reproducible data for a given population of subjects. The validity of the data arising for either instrument type must be assessed rigorously and with a focus, when practicable, on patient care outcomes.