PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Alan J Neville

Publications and source records attributed to Alan J Neville.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Using a sampling strategy to address psychometric challenges in tutorial-based assessments.

INTRODUCTION: Tutorial-based assessment, despite providing a good match with the philosophy adopted by educational programmes that emphasize small group learning, remains one of the greatest challenges for educators working in this context. The current study was performed in an attempt to assess the psychometric characteristics of tutorial-based evaluation upon adopting a multiple sampling approach that requires minimal recording of observations. METHOD: After reviewing the literature, a simple 3-item evaluation form was created. The items were "Professional Behaviour," "Contribution to Group Process," and "Contribution to Group Content." Explicit definition of these items was provided on an evaluation form. Twenty five tutors in five different programmes were asked to use the form to evaluate their students (N=169) after every tutorial over the course of an academic unit. Each item was rated using a 10-point scale. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha revealed an appropriate internal consistency in all five programmes. Test-retest reliability of any single rating was low, but the reliability of the average rating was at least 0.75 in all cases. The construct validity of the tool was supported by the observation of increasing ratings over the course of the academic unit and by the finding that more senior students received higher ratings than more junior students. CONCLUSION: Consistent with the context specificity phenomenon, the adoption of a "minimal observations often" approach to tutorial-based assessment appears to maintain better psychometric characteristics than do attempts to assess tutorial performance using more comprehensive measurement tools.

Curriculum↗

The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The role of basic science knowledge in clinical diagnosis is unclear. There has been no experimental demonstration of its value in helping students recall and organize clinical information. This study examines how causal knowledge may lead to better recall and diagnostic skill over time. METHOD: Undergraduate medical students learned either four neurological or rheumatic disorders. One group learned a basic science explanation for the symptoms. The other learned epidemiological information. Both were then tested with the same set of clinical cases immediately after learning and one week later. RESULTS: On immediate test, there was no difference in accuracy (70% for both groups). However, one week later, performance in the epidemiology group dropped to 51%; the basic science group only dropped to 62%. CONCLUSIONS: Basic science knowledge relating causal knowledge to disease symptoms can improve diagnostic accuracy after a delay.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗

Expert-novice differences in memory: a reformulation.

BACKGROUND: One of the most discriminating measures of expertise in multiple domains has been performance on memory tasks. In medicine, however, the relation between expertise and memory is more equivocal. PURPOSE: To compare and contrast the sufficiency of multiple explanations of this finding by using three probes of memory rather than the traditional free recall task alone. METHODS: Students, residents, and internists were asked to read case histories and assign diagnoses before undertaking free recall, cued recall, and recognition tests. RESULTS: Students consistently outperformed internists. Resident performance was more variable. CONCLUSIONS: Our data appear to rule out (a) the notion that expert memory for cases takes on an encapsulated form, (b) the idea that experts simply say less than students in response to a free recall task, and (c) the possibility that experts attend differentially to highly diagnostic features. The results can best be explained by the idea that students process the featural details of a case history more elaborately than do expert diagnosticians who, instead, read medical cases more holistically.

Clinical Competence↗