Biomedical subjects

David J Solomon

Publications and source records attributed to David J Solomon.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

A randomized trial comparing digital and live lecture formats [ISRCTN40455708.

BACKGROUND: Medical education is increasingly being conducted in community-based teaching sites at diverse locations, making it difficult to provide a consistent curriculum. We conducted a randomized trial to assess whether students who viewed digital lectures would perform as well on a measure of cognitive knowledge as students who viewed live lectures. Students' perceptions of the digital lecture format and their opinion as whether a digital lecture format could serve as an adequate replacement for live lectures was also assessed. METHODS: Students were randomized to either attend a lecture series at our main campus or view digital versions of the same lectures at community-based teaching sites. Both groups completed the same examination based on the lectures, and the group viewing the digital lectures completed a feedback form on the digital format. RESULTS: There were no differences in performance as measured by means or average rank. Despite technical problems, the students who viewed the digital lectures overwhelmingly felt the digital lectures could replace live lectures. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence digital lectures can be a viable alternative to live lectures as a means of delivering didactic presentations in a community-based setting.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Using a formative simulated patient exercise for curriculum evaluation.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear that teaching specific history taking, physical examination and patient teaching techniques to medical students results in durable behavioural changes. We used a quasi-experimental design that approximated a randomized double blinded trial to examine whether a Participatory Decision-Making (PDM) educational module taught in a clerkship improves performance on a Simulated Patient Exercise (SPE) in another clerkship, and how this is influenced by the time between training and assessment. METHODS: Third year medical students in an internal medicine clerkship were assessed on their use of PDM skills in an SPE conducted in the second week of the clerkship. The rotational structure of the third year clerkships formed a pseudo-randomized design where students had 1) completed the family practice clerkship containing a training module on PDM skills approximately four weeks prior to the SPE, 2) completed the family medicine clerkship and the training module approximately 12 weeks prior to the SPE or 3) had not completed the family medicine clerkship and the PDM training module at the time they were assessed via the SPE. RESULTS: Based on limited pilot data there were statistically significant differences between students who received PDM training approximately four weeks prior to the SPE and students who received training approximately 12 weeks prior to the SPE. Students who received training 12 weeks prior to the SPE performed better than those who received training four weeks prior to the SPE. In a second comparison students who received training four weeks prior to the SPE performed better than those who did not receive training but the differences narrowly missed statistical significance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a methodology for conducting rigorous curricular evaluations using natural experiments based on the structure of clinical rotations. In addition, it provided preliminary data suggesting targeted educational interventions can result in marked improvements in the clinical skills spontaneously exhibited by physician trainees in a setting different from which the skills were taught.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

The rating reliability calculator.

BACKGROUND: Rating scales form an important means of gathering evaluation data. Since important decisions are often based on these evaluations, determining the reliability of rating data can be critical. Most commonly used methods of estimating reliability require a complete set of ratings i.e. every subject being rated must be rated by each judge. Over fifty years ago Ebel described an algorithm for estimating the reliability of ratings based on incomplete data. While his article has been widely cited over the years, software based on the algorithm is not readily available. This paper describes an easy-to-use Web-based utility for estimating the reliability of ratings based on incomplete data using Ebel's algorithm. METHODS: The program is available public use on our server and the source code is freely available under GNU General Public License. The utility is written in PHP, a common open source imbedded scripting language. The rating data can be entered in a convenient format on the user's personal computer that the program will upload to the server for calculating the reliability and other statistics describing the ratings. RESULTS: When the program is run it displays the reliability, number of subject rated, harmonic mean number of judges rating each subject, the mean and standard deviation of the averaged ratings per subject. The program also displays the mean, standard deviation and number of ratings for each subject rated. Additionally the program will estimate the reliability of an average of a number of ratings for each subject via the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula. CONCLUSION: This simple web-based program provides a convenient means of estimating the reliability of rating data without the need to conduct special studies in order to provide complete rating data. I would welcome other researchers revising and enhancing the program.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

Sources of measurement error in an ECG examination: implications for performance-based assessments.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the sources of measurement error in an electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation examination given in a third-year internal medicine clerkship. DESIGN: Three successive generalizability studies were conducted. (1) Multiple faculty rated student responses to a previously administered exam. (2) The rating criteria were revised and study 1 was repeated. (3) The examination was converted into an extended matching format including multiple cases with the same underlying cardiac problem. RESULTS: The discrepancies among raters (main effects and interactions) were dwarfed by the error associated with case specificity. The largest source of the differences among raters was in rating student errors of commission rather than student errors of omission. Revisions in the rating criteria may have helped increase inter-rater reliability slightly however, due to case specificity, it had little impact on the overall reliability of the exam. The third study indicated the majority of the variability in student performance across cases was in performance across cases within the same type of cardiac problem rather than between different types of cardiac problems. CONCLUSIONS: Case specificity was the overwhelming source of measurement error. The variation among cases came mainly from discrepancies in performance between examples of the same cardiac problem rather than from differences in performance across different types of cardiac problems. This suggests it is necessary to include a large number of cases even if the goal is to assess performance on only a few types of cardiac problems.

Analysis of Variance↗