Assessing the quality of clinical teaching: a preliminary study

Medical Education 2010: 44 : 379–386 Objectives  Evaluations in the clinical arena are fraught with problems. Current assessments of clinical teaching typically measure attributes of clinical teachers in overly broad terms, are often subjective and often succumb to the halo effect. This is in contra...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical education 2010-04, Vol.44 (4), p.379-386
Hauptverfasser: Conigliaro, Rosemarie L, Stratton, Terry D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 386
container_issue 4
container_start_page 379
container_title Medical education
container_volume 44
creator Conigliaro, Rosemarie L
Stratton, Terry D
description Medical Education 2010: 44 : 379–386 Objectives  Evaluations in the clinical arena are fraught with problems. Current assessments of clinical teaching typically measure attributes of clinical teachers in overly broad terms, are often subjective and often succumb to the halo effect. This is in contradistinction to measurements of lectures, workshops or online educational content, which can more readily be assessed using objective criteria. As a result, clinical evaluations are often insufficient to provide focused feedback, guide faculty development or identify specific areas for clinical teachers to implement change and improvement. The aim of our study was to offset these limitations. Methods  We developed a structured, 15‐item objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)‐type checklist of discrete teaching behaviours intended to be: (i) observable; (ii) applicable to multiple disciplines, and (iii) reliably identifiable. Our goal was to test and utilise this checklist as an objective assessment of clinical teaching across a range of in‐patient teaching rounds experiences. During 2007–2008, pairs of external raters on two separate occasions observed nine attending physicians during actual in‐patient paediatrics and internal medicine ward rounds at a large, academic medical centre. Observers documented the extent to which specific teaching behaviours did or did not occur. Results  The internal consistency of the 15‐item checklist was good (α = 0.85). A two‐facet, partially nested G study found the generalisability of ratings to be generally acceptable, but inter‐rater reliability varied greatly between occasions and across individual checklist items. Conclusions  Despite attempts to identify discrete and observable target behaviours, placing observers on rounds to detect these behaviours may not be as straightforward as it would seem. Clinical teaching may be a more inherently subjective process, based on different teaching styles of faculty staff. However, a set of objective checklist items to be completed by trained observers on teaching rounds holds promise as a potentially viable means of identifying strengths and weaknesses of clinical instruction. Further research is needed to define what constitutes quality clinical teaching, as well as the most reliable method for assessing it.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03612.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733953353</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>733953353</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3672-fc8f2f8277855bd58fafe7d5255cd88df5f648c8d7ef67f802777f9a6de7eae53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkEtPGzEURi1ERULKX0DeVKxm6sf4ERZFEFKoRNsNr53leK7B6WQSxjNq8u_radJ0i3UlW7rnfr46CGFKcprO53lOuRQZGzOeM0LGOeGSsnx9gIb7xiEaEk50RiglA3Qc45wQokShj9CAkaIoiOJDdHEZI8QY6hfcvgJ-62wV2g1eeuyqUAdnK9yCda8JOMcWrxqowiLUttng2Hbl5iP64G0V4WR3j9DD1-n95Da7-3nzbXJ5lzkuFcu80555zZTSQsxKob31oErBhHCl1qUXXhba6VKBl8prkkjlx1aWoMCC4CN0ts1dNcu3DmJrFiE6qCpbw7KLRnE-FpynGiG9JV2zjLEBb1ZNWKSFDSWmt2fmppdkekmmt2f-2jPrNHq6-6SbLaDcD_7TlYBPO8DGpMY3tnYh_ueY4ExqmrgvW-53qGDz7gXM9-n1Q_9MAdk2IMQW1vsA2_wyUnElzNOPG_P4LKm-otzc8j-dNZny</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733953353</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing the quality of clinical teaching: a preliminary study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Conigliaro, Rosemarie L ; Stratton, Terry D</creator><creatorcontrib>Conigliaro, Rosemarie L ; Stratton, Terry D</creatorcontrib><description>Medical Education 2010: 44 : 379–386 Objectives  Evaluations in the clinical arena are fraught with problems. Current assessments of clinical teaching typically measure attributes of clinical teachers in overly broad terms, are often subjective and often succumb to the halo effect. This is in contradistinction to measurements of lectures, workshops or online educational content, which can more readily be assessed using objective criteria. As a result, clinical evaluations are often insufficient to provide focused feedback, guide faculty development or identify specific areas for clinical teachers to implement change and improvement. The aim of our study was to offset these limitations. Methods  We developed a structured, 15‐item objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)‐type checklist of discrete teaching behaviours intended to be: (i) observable; (ii) applicable to multiple disciplines, and (iii) reliably identifiable. Our goal was to test and utilise this checklist as an objective assessment of clinical teaching across a range of in‐patient teaching rounds experiences. During 2007–2008, pairs of external raters on two separate occasions observed nine attending physicians during actual in‐patient paediatrics and internal medicine ward rounds at a large, academic medical centre. Observers documented the extent to which specific teaching behaviours did or did not occur. Results  The internal consistency of the 15‐item checklist was good (α = 0.85). A two‐facet, partially nested G study found the generalisability of ratings to be generally acceptable, but inter‐rater reliability varied greatly between occasions and across individual checklist items. Conclusions  Despite attempts to identify discrete and observable target behaviours, placing observers on rounds to detect these behaviours may not be as straightforward as it would seem. Clinical teaching may be a more inherently subjective process, based on different teaching styles of faculty staff. However, a set of objective checklist items to be completed by trained observers on teaching rounds holds promise as a potentially viable means of identifying strengths and weaknesses of clinical instruction. Further research is needed to define what constitutes quality clinical teaching, as well as the most reliable method for assessing it.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0308-0110</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2923</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03612.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20444073</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Competence - standards ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - standards ; Educational Measurement - methods ; Educational Measurement - standards ; Health participants ; Humans ; Kentucky ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Teaching - methods ; Teaching - standards</subject><ispartof>Medical education, 2010-04, Vol.44 (4), p.379-386</ispartof><rights>Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2010</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3672-fc8f2f8277855bd58fafe7d5255cd88df5f648c8d7ef67f802777f9a6de7eae53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3672-fc8f2f8277855bd58fafe7d5255cd88df5f648c8d7ef67f802777f9a6de7eae53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2923.2009.03612.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2923.2009.03612.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27922,27923,45572,45573</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=22532681$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20444073$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Conigliaro, Rosemarie L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stratton, Terry D</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing the quality of clinical teaching: a preliminary study</title><title>Medical education</title><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><description>Medical Education 2010: 44 : 379–386 Objectives  Evaluations in the clinical arena are fraught with problems. Current assessments of clinical teaching typically measure attributes of clinical teachers in overly broad terms, are often subjective and often succumb to the halo effect. This is in contradistinction to measurements of lectures, workshops or online educational content, which can more readily be assessed using objective criteria. As a result, clinical evaluations are often insufficient to provide focused feedback, guide faculty development or identify specific areas for clinical teachers to implement change and improvement. The aim of our study was to offset these limitations. Methods  We developed a structured, 15‐item objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)‐type checklist of discrete teaching behaviours intended to be: (i) observable; (ii) applicable to multiple disciplines, and (iii) reliably identifiable. Our goal was to test and utilise this checklist as an objective assessment of clinical teaching across a range of in‐patient teaching rounds experiences. During 2007–2008, pairs of external raters on two separate occasions observed nine attending physicians during actual in‐patient paediatrics and internal medicine ward rounds at a large, academic medical centre. Observers documented the extent to which specific teaching behaviours did or did not occur. Results  The internal consistency of the 15‐item checklist was good (α = 0.85). A two‐facet, partially nested G study found the generalisability of ratings to be generally acceptable, but inter‐rater reliability varied greatly between occasions and across individual checklist items. Conclusions  Despite attempts to identify discrete and observable target behaviours, placing observers on rounds to detect these behaviours may not be as straightforward as it would seem. Clinical teaching may be a more inherently subjective process, based on different teaching styles of faculty staff. However, a set of objective checklist items to be completed by trained observers on teaching rounds holds promise as a potentially viable means of identifying strengths and weaknesses of clinical instruction. Further research is needed to define what constitutes quality clinical teaching, as well as the most reliable method for assessing it.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Competence - standards</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - standards</subject><subject>Educational Measurement - methods</subject><subject>Educational Measurement - standards</subject><subject>Health participants</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kentucky</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Teaching - methods</subject><subject>Teaching - standards</subject><issn>0308-0110</issn><issn>1365-2923</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkEtPGzEURi1ERULKX0DeVKxm6sf4ERZFEFKoRNsNr53leK7B6WQSxjNq8u_radJ0i3UlW7rnfr46CGFKcprO53lOuRQZGzOeM0LGOeGSsnx9gIb7xiEaEk50RiglA3Qc45wQokShj9CAkaIoiOJDdHEZI8QY6hfcvgJ-62wV2g1eeuyqUAdnK9yCda8JOMcWrxqowiLUttng2Hbl5iP64G0V4WR3j9DD1-n95Da7-3nzbXJ5lzkuFcu80555zZTSQsxKob31oErBhHCl1qUXXhba6VKBl8prkkjlx1aWoMCC4CN0ts1dNcu3DmJrFiE6qCpbw7KLRnE-FpynGiG9JV2zjLEBb1ZNWKSFDSWmt2fmppdkekmmt2f-2jPrNHq6-6SbLaDcD_7TlYBPO8DGpMY3tnYh_ueY4ExqmrgvW-53qGDz7gXM9-n1Q_9MAdk2IMQW1vsA2_wyUnElzNOPG_P4LKm-otzc8j-dNZny</recordid><startdate>201004</startdate><enddate>201004</enddate><creator>Conigliaro, Rosemarie L</creator><creator>Stratton, Terry D</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><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>201004</creationdate><title>Assessing the quality of clinical teaching: a preliminary study</title><author>Conigliaro, Rosemarie L ; Stratton, Terry D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3672-fc8f2f8277855bd58fafe7d5255cd88df5f648c8d7ef67f802777f9a6de7eae53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Competence - standards</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - standards</topic><topic>Educational Measurement - methods</topic><topic>Educational Measurement - standards</topic><topic>Health participants</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kentucky</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Teaching - methods</topic><topic>Teaching - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Conigliaro, Rosemarie L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stratton, Terry D</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><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>Medical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Conigliaro, Rosemarie L</au><au>Stratton, Terry D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing the quality of clinical teaching: a preliminary study</atitle><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><date>2010-04</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>379</spage><epage>386</epage><pages>379-386</pages><issn>0308-0110</issn><eissn>1365-2923</eissn><abstract>Medical Education 2010: 44 : 379–386 Objectives  Evaluations in the clinical arena are fraught with problems. Current assessments of clinical teaching typically measure attributes of clinical teachers in overly broad terms, are often subjective and often succumb to the halo effect. This is in contradistinction to measurements of lectures, workshops or online educational content, which can more readily be assessed using objective criteria. As a result, clinical evaluations are often insufficient to provide focused feedback, guide faculty development or identify specific areas for clinical teachers to implement change and improvement. The aim of our study was to offset these limitations. Methods  We developed a structured, 15‐item objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)‐type checklist of discrete teaching behaviours intended to be: (i) observable; (ii) applicable to multiple disciplines, and (iii) reliably identifiable. Our goal was to test and utilise this checklist as an objective assessment of clinical teaching across a range of in‐patient teaching rounds experiences. During 2007–2008, pairs of external raters on two separate occasions observed nine attending physicians during actual in‐patient paediatrics and internal medicine ward rounds at a large, academic medical centre. Observers documented the extent to which specific teaching behaviours did or did not occur. Results  The internal consistency of the 15‐item checklist was good (α = 0.85). A two‐facet, partially nested G study found the generalisability of ratings to be generally acceptable, but inter‐rater reliability varied greatly between occasions and across individual checklist items. Conclusions  Despite attempts to identify discrete and observable target behaviours, placing observers on rounds to detect these behaviours may not be as straightforward as it would seem. Clinical teaching may be a more inherently subjective process, based on different teaching styles of faculty staff. However, a set of objective checklist items to be completed by trained observers on teaching rounds holds promise as a potentially viable means of identifying strengths and weaknesses of clinical instruction. Further research is needed to define what constitutes quality clinical teaching, as well as the most reliable method for assessing it.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>20444073</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03612.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0308-0110
ispartof Medical education, 2010-04, Vol.44 (4), p.379-386
issn 0308-0110
1365-2923
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733953353
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; EBSCOhost Education Source
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Clinical Competence - standards
Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods
Education, Medical, Undergraduate - standards
Educational Measurement - methods
Educational Measurement - standards
Health participants
Humans
Kentucky
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Teaching - methods
Teaching - standards
title Assessing the quality of clinical teaching: a preliminary study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T18%3A05%3A23IST&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=Assessing%20the%20quality%20of%20clinical%20teaching:%20a%20preliminary%20study&rft.jtitle=Medical%20education&rft.au=Conigliaro,%20Rosemarie%20L&rft.date=2010-04&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=379&rft.epage=386&rft.pages=379-386&rft.issn=0308-0110&rft.eissn=1365-2923&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03612.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E733953353%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=733953353&rft_id=info:pmid/20444073&rfr_iscdi=true