PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 839510

A student-run course in interprofessional relations.

Abstract

The topic of working relationships among health professionals is one which has long been neglected in professional school curricula. During the winter of 1976 students from four health professions--medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, and physical therapy--initiated a course designed to improve their knowledge of one another's training and skills, with the larger aim of preparing themselves to work in health care teams. The nine weekly meetings are described in terms of their content and students' reactions. In the discussion the underlying themes of legal responsibilities and of sex-roles as factors in health care team functioning are identified. Suggestions are made about format and techniques that seem to be useful for courses of this type.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Boyer, D Lee, C Kirchner. 1977. A student-run course in interprofessional relations.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-197703000-00002

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↗