To the point: Medical education reviews evaluation in context: Assessing learners, teachers, and training programs
Learners, teachers, and programs need to be evaluated. This article reviews the purpose and the current methods for evaluating all 3. Clinical impressions of the learner are yielding increasingly to direct observation and skill assessment. The Reporter, Interpreter, Manager, and Educator (RIME) meth...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2005, Vol.192 (1), p.34-37 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 37 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 34 |
| container_title | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology |
| container_volume | 192 |
| creator | Metheny, William P. Espey, Eve L. Bienstock, Jessica Cox, Susan M. Erickson, Sonya S. Goepfert, Alice R. Hammoud, Maya M. Hartmann, Diane M. Krueger, Paul M. Neutens, James J. Puscheck, Elizabeth |
| description | Learners, teachers, and programs need to be evaluated. This article reviews the purpose and the current methods for evaluating all 3. Clinical impressions of the learner are yielding increasingly to direct observation and skill assessment. The Reporter, Interpreter, Manager, and Educator (RIME) method offers a unique way of assessing and providing formative feedback to the learner. Learning portfolios help document achievements and provide a collection for self-assessment and growth. Teachers benefit from feedback especially if followed up with consultation. Programs need both quantitative and qualitative data to document performance. National data gathered locally from exit surveys now exist that facilitate comparison of programs (eg, clerkships) within and across institutions. The emphasis on institutional accountability makes it critical to directly evaluate learners and their educational programs. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.07.036 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67379749</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002937804007963</els_id><sourcerecordid>67379749</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-375c312c6e7d5275318758a28988abdcaa524f83c7c9539aca3c2b9186013f5e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EokvhD3BAvsCJBH8k_kBcqoovqYhLOVuzzmTrVdZZbKfAv8dhV-qNk8fW885YzxDykrOWM67e7VvYz7tWMNa1TLdMqkdkw5nVjTLKPCYbxphorNTmgjzLeb9ehRVPyQXvlebW2g1JtzMtd0iPc4jlPf2GQ_AwURwWDyXMkSa8D_grU7yHaTk9hUj9HAv-roGrnDHnEHd0QkgRU35LC4K_-1dBHGhJEOIKHNO8S3DIz8mTEaaML87nJfnx6ePt9Zfm5vvnr9dXN42XpiuN1L2XXHiFeuiF7iU3ujcgjDUGtoMH6EU3Gum1t7204EF6sbXcKMbl2KO8JG9Ofevgnwvm4g4he5wmiDgv2SkttdWdraA4gT7NOScc3TGFA6Q_jjO3mnZ7t5p2q2nHtKuma-jVufuyPeDwEDmrrcDrMwC5Kh0TRB_yA6c6rZmWlftw4rC6qK6Tyz5g9HUTCX1xwxz-94-_MHOdVw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67379749</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>To the point: Medical education reviews evaluation in context: Assessing learners, teachers, and training programs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Metheny, William P. ; Espey, Eve L. ; Bienstock, Jessica ; Cox, Susan M. ; Erickson, Sonya S. ; Goepfert, Alice R. ; Hammoud, Maya M. ; Hartmann, Diane M. ; Krueger, Paul M. ; Neutens, James J. ; Puscheck, Elizabeth</creator><creatorcontrib>Metheny, William P. ; Espey, Eve L. ; Bienstock, Jessica ; Cox, Susan M. ; Erickson, Sonya S. ; Goepfert, Alice R. ; Hammoud, Maya M. ; Hartmann, Diane M. ; Krueger, Paul M. ; Neutens, James J. ; Puscheck, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><description>Learners, teachers, and programs need to be evaluated. This article reviews the purpose and the current methods for evaluating all 3. Clinical impressions of the learner are yielding increasingly to direct observation and skill assessment. The Reporter, Interpreter, Manager, and Educator (RIME) method offers a unique way of assessing and providing formative feedback to the learner. Learning portfolios help document achievements and provide a collection for self-assessment and growth. Teachers benefit from feedback especially if followed up with consultation. Programs need both quantitative and qualitative data to document performance. National data gathered locally from exit surveys now exist that facilitate comparison of programs (eg, clerkships) within and across institutions. The emphasis on institutional accountability makes it critical to directly evaluate learners and their educational programs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6868</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.07.036</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15671999</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJOGAH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia, PA: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Education, Medical - standards ; Evaluation ; Female ; Gynecology - education ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Learners ; Medical sciences ; Obstetrics - education ; Pregnancy ; Program Evaluation ; Programs ; Teachers ; United States</subject><ispartof>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2005, Vol.192 (1), p.34-37</ispartof><rights>2005 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-375c312c6e7d5275318758a28988abdcaa524f83c7c9539aca3c2b9186013f5e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-375c312c6e7d5275318758a28988abdcaa524f83c7c9539aca3c2b9186013f5e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.07.036$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,4024,27923,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16477073$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15671999$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Metheny, William P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espey, Eve L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bienstock, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cox, Susan M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erickson, Sonya S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goepfert, Alice R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hammoud, Maya M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartmann, Diane M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krueger, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neutens, James J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puscheck, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><title>To the point: Medical education reviews evaluation in context: Assessing learners, teachers, and training programs</title><title>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</title><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Learners, teachers, and programs need to be evaluated. This article reviews the purpose and the current methods for evaluating all 3. Clinical impressions of the learner are yielding increasingly to direct observation and skill assessment. The Reporter, Interpreter, Manager, and Educator (RIME) method offers a unique way of assessing and providing formative feedback to the learner. Learning portfolios help document achievements and provide a collection for self-assessment and growth. Teachers benefit from feedback especially if followed up with consultation. Programs need both quantitative and qualitative data to document performance. National data gathered locally from exit surveys now exist that facilitate comparison of programs (eg, clerkships) within and across institutions. The emphasis on institutional accountability makes it critical to directly evaluate learners and their educational programs.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Education, Medical - standards</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology - education</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Learners</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Obstetrics - education</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>Programs</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0002-9378</issn><issn>1097-6868</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EokvhD3BAvsCJBH8k_kBcqoovqYhLOVuzzmTrVdZZbKfAv8dhV-qNk8fW885YzxDykrOWM67e7VvYz7tWMNa1TLdMqkdkw5nVjTLKPCYbxphorNTmgjzLeb9ehRVPyQXvlebW2g1JtzMtd0iPc4jlPf2GQ_AwURwWDyXMkSa8D_grU7yHaTk9hUj9HAv-roGrnDHnEHd0QkgRU35LC4K_-1dBHGhJEOIKHNO8S3DIz8mTEaaML87nJfnx6ePt9Zfm5vvnr9dXN42XpiuN1L2XXHiFeuiF7iU3ujcgjDUGtoMH6EU3Gum1t7204EF6sbXcKMbl2KO8JG9Ofevgnwvm4g4he5wmiDgv2SkttdWdraA4gT7NOScc3TGFA6Q_jjO3mnZ7t5p2q2nHtKuma-jVufuyPeDwEDmrrcDrMwC5Kh0TRB_yA6c6rZmWlftw4rC6qK6Tyz5g9HUTCX1xwxz-94-_MHOdVw</recordid><startdate>2005</startdate><enddate>2005</enddate><creator>Metheny, William P.</creator><creator>Espey, Eve L.</creator><creator>Bienstock, Jessica</creator><creator>Cox, Susan M.</creator><creator>Erickson, Sonya S.</creator><creator>Goepfert, Alice R.</creator><creator>Hammoud, Maya M.</creator><creator>Hartmann, Diane M.</creator><creator>Krueger, Paul M.</creator><creator>Neutens, James J.</creator><creator>Puscheck, Elizabeth</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2005</creationdate><title>To the point: Medical education reviews evaluation in context: Assessing learners, teachers, and training programs</title><author>Metheny, William P. ; Espey, Eve L. ; Bienstock, Jessica ; Cox, Susan M. ; Erickson, Sonya S. ; Goepfert, Alice R. ; Hammoud, Maya M. ; Hartmann, Diane M. ; Krueger, Paul M. ; Neutens, James J. ; Puscheck, Elizabeth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-375c312c6e7d5275318758a28988abdcaa524f83c7c9539aca3c2b9186013f5e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Education, Medical - standards</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology - education</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Learners</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Obstetrics - education</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>Programs</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Metheny, William P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espey, Eve L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bienstock, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cox, Susan M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erickson, Sonya S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goepfert, Alice R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hammoud, Maya M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartmann, Diane M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krueger, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neutens, James J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puscheck, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Metheny, William P.</au><au>Espey, Eve L.</au><au>Bienstock, Jessica</au><au>Cox, Susan M.</au><au>Erickson, Sonya S.</au><au>Goepfert, Alice R.</au><au>Hammoud, Maya M.</au><au>Hartmann, Diane M.</au><au>Krueger, Paul M.</au><au>Neutens, James J.</au><au>Puscheck, Elizabeth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>To the point: Medical education reviews evaluation in context: Assessing learners, teachers, and training programs</atitle><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2005</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>192</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>34</spage><epage>37</epage><pages>34-37</pages><issn>0002-9378</issn><eissn>1097-6868</eissn><coden>AJOGAH</coden><abstract>Learners, teachers, and programs need to be evaluated. This article reviews the purpose and the current methods for evaluating all 3. Clinical impressions of the learner are yielding increasingly to direct observation and skill assessment. The Reporter, Interpreter, Manager, and Educator (RIME) method offers a unique way of assessing and providing formative feedback to the learner. Learning portfolios help document achievements and provide a collection for self-assessment and growth. Teachers benefit from feedback especially if followed up with consultation. Programs need both quantitative and qualitative data to document performance. National data gathered locally from exit surveys now exist that facilitate comparison of programs (eg, clerkships) within and across institutions. The emphasis on institutional accountability makes it critical to directly evaluate learners and their educational programs.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia, PA</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>15671999</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajog.2004.07.036</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0002-9378 |
| ispartof | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2005, Vol.192 (1), p.34-37 |
| issn | 0002-9378 1097-6868 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67379749 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Education, Medical - standards Evaluation Female Gynecology - education Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Learners Medical sciences Obstetrics - education Pregnancy Program Evaluation Programs Teachers United States |
| title | To the point: Medical education reviews evaluation in context: Assessing learners, teachers, and training programs |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T03%3A16%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=To%20the%20point:%20Medical%20education%20reviews%20evaluation%20in%20context:%20Assessing%20learners,%20teachers,%20and%20training%20programs&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynecology&rft.au=Metheny,%20William%20P.&rft.date=2005&rft.volume=192&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=34&rft.epage=37&rft.pages=34-37&rft.issn=0002-9378&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft.coden=AJOGAH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.07.036&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67379749%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67379749&rft_id=info:pmid/15671999&rft_els_id=S0002937804007963&rfr_iscdi=true |