PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2916910

Independent learning in pathology. Does it work?

J Raskova·E G Martin·R L Trelstad·S M Shea
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The sophomore pathology course at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, was substantially modified with the intention of promoting guided, independent learning. The emphasis has been shifted from lectures to other modalities of instruction. This article delineates the curricular changes made, describes the instructional modalities used, and reports student performance after two year's experience with the new curriculum.

Explore related subjects

Education, Medical, UndergraduateEvaluation Studies as TopicPathologyProgrammed Instructions as TopicJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Raskova, E G Martin, R L Trelstad, S M Shea. 1989. Independent learning in pathology. Does it work?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2916910/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

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↗