Qualitative and Quantitative Outcomes of Audience Response Systems as an Educational Tool in a Plastic Surgery Residency Program

In-training evaluations in graduate medical education have typically been challenging. Although the majority of standardized examination delivery methods have become computer-based, in-training examinations generally remain pencil-paper-based, if they are performed at all. Audience response systems...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) 2009-12, Vol.124 (6), p.2179-2184
Hauptverfasser: Arneja, Jugpal S., Narasimhan, Kailash, Bouwman, David, Bridge, Patrick D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2184
container_issue 6
container_start_page 2179
container_title Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)
container_volume 124
creator Arneja, Jugpal S.
Narasimhan, Kailash
Bouwman, David
Bridge, Patrick D.
description In-training evaluations in graduate medical education have typically been challenging. Although the majority of standardized examination delivery methods have become computer-based, in-training examinations generally remain pencil-paper-based, if they are performed at all. Audience response systems present a novel way to stimulate and evaluate the resident-learner. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of audience response systems testing as compared with traditional testing in a plastic surgery residency program. A prospective 1-year pilot study of 10 plastic surgery residents was performed using audience response systems-delivered testing for the first half of the academic year and traditional pencil-paper testing for the second half. Examination content was based on monthly "Core Quest" curriculum conferences. Quantitative outcome measures included comparison of pretest and posttest and cumulative test scores of both formats. Qualitative outcomes from the individual participants were obtained by questionnaire. When using the audience response systems format, pretest and posttest mean scores were 67.5 and 82.5 percent, respectively; using traditional pencil-paper format, scores were 56.5 percent and 79.5 percent. A comparison of the cumulative mean audience response systems score (85.0 percent) and traditional pencil-paper score (75.0 percent) revealed statistically significantly higher scores with audience response systems (p = 0.01). Qualitative outcomes revealed increased conference enthusiasm, greater enjoyment of testing, and no user difficulties with the audience response systems technology. The audience response systems modality of in-training evaluation captures participant interest and reinforces material more effectively than traditional pencil-paper testing does. The advantages include a more interactive learning environment, stimulation of class participation, immediate feedback to residents, and immediate tabulation of results for the educator. Disadvantages include start-up costs and lead-time preparation.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bcf11f
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_734166756</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>734166756</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3813-17f53cce9119208a9c52674563027dc25a1a0b952f2db715686c7ead8fc4f2f73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUE1v1DAQtRCILgv_ACFfEKcUjx3HybGqyodUqUu3nKOJM24DTrzYSau98dPxqguVsMYzmtF7bzSPsbcgTkE05uPmensqOgGKFNTQWQfgnrEVaNkUpSzlc7YSQskChJYn7FVKP4QAoyr9kp1A02hZmXrFfn9b0A8zzsM9cZx6nvtp_ju4WmYbRko8OH629ANNlvg1pV2YEvHtPs00Jo45Jn7RLzazwoSe34Tg-TBx5BuPaR4s3y7xluL-QB76LLPnmxhuI46v2QuHPtGbY12z758ubs6_FJdXn7-en10WVtWgCjBOK2upAWikqLGxhwNKXSkhTW-lRkDR5auc7DsDuqorawj72tnSSWfUmn141N3F8GuhNLfjkCx5jxOFJbVGlVBVJguuWfmItDGkFMm1uziMGPctiPZgfZutb_-3PtPeHRcs3Uj9E-nodQa8PwIwWfQu4mSH9A8nJTSlMuZp_0PwM8X00y8PFNs7Qj_ftSK_SquykEI0kJMo8tdK_QEVtp7R</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>734166756</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Qualitative and Quantitative Outcomes of Audience Response Systems as an Educational Tool in a Plastic Surgery Residency Program</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Arneja, Jugpal S. ; Narasimhan, Kailash ; Bouwman, David ; Bridge, Patrick D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Arneja, Jugpal S. ; Narasimhan, Kailash ; Bouwman, David ; Bridge, Patrick D.</creatorcontrib><description>In-training evaluations in graduate medical education have typically been challenging. Although the majority of standardized examination delivery methods have become computer-based, in-training examinations generally remain pencil-paper-based, if they are performed at all. Audience response systems present a novel way to stimulate and evaluate the resident-learner. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of audience response systems testing as compared with traditional testing in a plastic surgery residency program. A prospective 1-year pilot study of 10 plastic surgery residents was performed using audience response systems-delivered testing for the first half of the academic year and traditional pencil-paper testing for the second half. Examination content was based on monthly "Core Quest" curriculum conferences. Quantitative outcome measures included comparison of pretest and posttest and cumulative test scores of both formats. Qualitative outcomes from the individual participants were obtained by questionnaire. When using the audience response systems format, pretest and posttest mean scores were 67.5 and 82.5 percent, respectively; using traditional pencil-paper format, scores were 56.5 percent and 79.5 percent. A comparison of the cumulative mean audience response systems score (85.0 percent) and traditional pencil-paper score (75.0 percent) revealed statistically significantly higher scores with audience response systems (p = 0.01). Qualitative outcomes revealed increased conference enthusiasm, greater enjoyment of testing, and no user difficulties with the audience response systems technology. The audience response systems modality of in-training evaluation captures participant interest and reinforces material more effectively than traditional pencil-paper testing does. The advantages include a more interactive learning environment, stimulation of class participation, immediate feedback to residents, and immediate tabulation of results for the educator. Disadvantages include start-up costs and lead-time preparation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-1052</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1529-4242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bcf11f</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19952678</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: American Society of Plastic Surgeons</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Competence ; Competency-Based Education ; Computer-Assisted Instruction ; Education, Medical, Graduate - methods ; Educational Measurement - methods ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Female ; Humans ; Internship and Residency - organization &amp; administration ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Program Evaluation ; Prospective Studies ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgery, Plastic - education ; Teaching Materials</subject><ispartof>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2009-12, Vol.124 (6), p.2179-2184</ispartof><rights>American Society of Plastic Surgeons</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3813-17f53cce9119208a9c52674563027dc25a1a0b952f2db715686c7ead8fc4f2f73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3813-17f53cce9119208a9c52674563027dc25a1a0b952f2db715686c7ead8fc4f2f73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=22194377$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952678$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Arneja, Jugpal S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Narasimhan, Kailash</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bouwman, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bridge, Patrick D.</creatorcontrib><title>Qualitative and Quantitative Outcomes of Audience Response Systems as an Educational Tool in a Plastic Surgery Residency Program</title><title>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</title><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><description>In-training evaluations in graduate medical education have typically been challenging. Although the majority of standardized examination delivery methods have become computer-based, in-training examinations generally remain pencil-paper-based, if they are performed at all. Audience response systems present a novel way to stimulate and evaluate the resident-learner. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of audience response systems testing as compared with traditional testing in a plastic surgery residency program. A prospective 1-year pilot study of 10 plastic surgery residents was performed using audience response systems-delivered testing for the first half of the academic year and traditional pencil-paper testing for the second half. Examination content was based on monthly "Core Quest" curriculum conferences. Quantitative outcome measures included comparison of pretest and posttest and cumulative test scores of both formats. Qualitative outcomes from the individual participants were obtained by questionnaire. When using the audience response systems format, pretest and posttest mean scores were 67.5 and 82.5 percent, respectively; using traditional pencil-paper format, scores were 56.5 percent and 79.5 percent. A comparison of the cumulative mean audience response systems score (85.0 percent) and traditional pencil-paper score (75.0 percent) revealed statistically significantly higher scores with audience response systems (p = 0.01). Qualitative outcomes revealed increased conference enthusiasm, greater enjoyment of testing, and no user difficulties with the audience response systems technology. The audience response systems modality of in-training evaluation captures participant interest and reinforces material more effectively than traditional pencil-paper testing does. The advantages include a more interactive learning environment, stimulation of class participation, immediate feedback to residents, and immediate tabulation of results for the educator. Disadvantages include start-up costs and lead-time preparation.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Competency-Based Education</subject><subject>Computer-Assisted Instruction</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Graduate - methods</subject><subject>Educational Measurement - methods</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internship and Residency - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgery, Plastic - education</subject><subject>Teaching Materials</subject><issn>0032-1052</issn><issn>1529-4242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUE1v1DAQtRCILgv_ACFfEKcUjx3HybGqyodUqUu3nKOJM24DTrzYSau98dPxqguVsMYzmtF7bzSPsbcgTkE05uPmensqOgGKFNTQWQfgnrEVaNkUpSzlc7YSQskChJYn7FVKP4QAoyr9kp1A02hZmXrFfn9b0A8zzsM9cZx6nvtp_ju4WmYbRko8OH629ANNlvg1pV2YEvHtPs00Jo45Jn7RLzazwoSe34Tg-TBx5BuPaR4s3y7xluL-QB76LLPnmxhuI46v2QuHPtGbY12z758ubs6_FJdXn7-en10WVtWgCjBOK2upAWikqLGxhwNKXSkhTW-lRkDR5auc7DsDuqorawj72tnSSWfUmn141N3F8GuhNLfjkCx5jxOFJbVGlVBVJguuWfmItDGkFMm1uziMGPctiPZgfZutb_-3PtPeHRcs3Uj9E-nodQa8PwIwWfQu4mSH9A8nJTSlMuZp_0PwM8X00y8PFNs7Qj_ftSK_SquykEI0kJMo8tdK_QEVtp7R</recordid><startdate>20091201</startdate><enddate>20091201</enddate><creator>Arneja, Jugpal S.</creator><creator>Narasimhan, Kailash</creator><creator>Bouwman, David</creator><creator>Bridge, Patrick D.</creator><general>American Society of Plastic Surgeons</general><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</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>20091201</creationdate><title>Qualitative and Quantitative Outcomes of Audience Response Systems as an Educational Tool in a Plastic Surgery Residency Program</title><author>Arneja, Jugpal S. ; Narasimhan, Kailash ; Bouwman, David ; Bridge, Patrick D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3813-17f53cce9119208a9c52674563027dc25a1a0b952f2db715686c7ead8fc4f2f73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Competency-Based Education</topic><topic>Computer-Assisted Instruction</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Graduate - methods</topic><topic>Educational Measurement - methods</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internship and Residency - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgery, Plastic - education</topic><topic>Teaching Materials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Arneja, Jugpal S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Narasimhan, Kailash</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bouwman, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bridge, Patrick D.</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>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Arneja, Jugpal S.</au><au>Narasimhan, Kailash</au><au>Bouwman, David</au><au>Bridge, Patrick D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Qualitative and Quantitative Outcomes of Audience Response Systems as an Educational Tool in a Plastic Surgery Residency Program</atitle><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><date>2009-12-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>124</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2179</spage><epage>2184</epage><pages>2179-2184</pages><issn>0032-1052</issn><eissn>1529-4242</eissn><abstract>In-training evaluations in graduate medical education have typically been challenging. Although the majority of standardized examination delivery methods have become computer-based, in-training examinations generally remain pencil-paper-based, if they are performed at all. Audience response systems present a novel way to stimulate and evaluate the resident-learner. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of audience response systems testing as compared with traditional testing in a plastic surgery residency program. A prospective 1-year pilot study of 10 plastic surgery residents was performed using audience response systems-delivered testing for the first half of the academic year and traditional pencil-paper testing for the second half. Examination content was based on monthly "Core Quest" curriculum conferences. Quantitative outcome measures included comparison of pretest and posttest and cumulative test scores of both formats. Qualitative outcomes from the individual participants were obtained by questionnaire. When using the audience response systems format, pretest and posttest mean scores were 67.5 and 82.5 percent, respectively; using traditional pencil-paper format, scores were 56.5 percent and 79.5 percent. A comparison of the cumulative mean audience response systems score (85.0 percent) and traditional pencil-paper score (75.0 percent) revealed statistically significantly higher scores with audience response systems (p = 0.01). Qualitative outcomes revealed increased conference enthusiasm, greater enjoyment of testing, and no user difficulties with the audience response systems technology. The audience response systems modality of in-training evaluation captures participant interest and reinforces material more effectively than traditional pencil-paper testing does. The advantages include a more interactive learning environment, stimulation of class participation, immediate feedback to residents, and immediate tabulation of results for the educator. Disadvantages include start-up costs and lead-time preparation.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>American Society of Plastic Surgeons</pub><pmid>19952678</pmid><doi>10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bcf11f</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0032-1052
ispartof Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2009-12, Vol.124 (6), p.2179-2184
issn 0032-1052
1529-4242
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_734166756
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Clinical Competence
Competency-Based Education
Computer-Assisted Instruction
Education, Medical, Graduate - methods
Educational Measurement - methods
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Female
Humans
Internship and Residency - organization & administration
Male
Medical sciences
Program Evaluation
Prospective Studies
Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases
Surgery, Plastic - education
Teaching Materials
title Qualitative and Quantitative Outcomes of Audience Response Systems as an Educational Tool in a Plastic Surgery Residency Program
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T14%3A56%3A54IST&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=Qualitative%20and%20Quantitative%20Outcomes%20of%20Audience%20Response%20Systems%20as%20an%20Educational%20Tool%20in%20a%20Plastic%20Surgery%20Residency%20Program&rft.jtitle=Plastic%20and%20reconstructive%20surgery%20(1963)&rft.au=Arneja,%20Jugpal%20S.&rft.date=2009-12-01&rft.volume=124&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2179&rft.epage=2184&rft.pages=2179-2184&rft.issn=0032-1052&rft.eissn=1529-4242&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bcf11f&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E734166756%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=734166756&rft_id=info:pmid/19952678&rfr_iscdi=true