PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 1857276

Self-planned experimentation (SPEX) practical classes in physiology.

Abstract

A new form of undergraduate physiology practical experience is described. Students make their acquaintance with the physiological apparatus in the usual manner. At the end of the afternoon each group of four students is allocated an item of equipment with which to perform a true investigative experiment of their own choice, in their own time, the results of which are to be presented 2 weeks later by a randomly chosen member of the group. Students may investigate any question that can be answered using the resources available to them without endangering themselves or their subjects. Marks are awarded for the planning of the experiment (i.e. choice of controls, etc.), the correctness of graphical presentation of the results, the appropriateness of the statistical analysis, and for the discussion. There are no penalties for negative or unexpected results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Leon, P M Jordi, J H Koeslag. 1991. Self-planned experimentation (SPEX) practical classes in physiology.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1991.tb00053.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗