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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) 2009-12, Vol.124 (6), p.2179-2184 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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&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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |