We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
VALIDATION STUDIES
Measuring faculty reflection on medical grand rounds at Mayo Clinic: associations with teaching experience, clinical exposure, and presenter effectiveness.
Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2013 March
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a new instrument for measuring participant reflection on continuing medical education (CME) and determine associations between the reflection instrument scores and CME presenter, participant, and presentation characteristics.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective validation study of presenters and faculty at the weekly medical grand rounds at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2011. Eight items (5-point Likert scales) were developed on the basis of 4 reflection levels: habitual action, understanding, reflection, and critical reflection. Factor analysis was performed to account for clustered data. Interrater and internal consistency reliabilities were calculated. Associations between reflection scores and characteristics of presenters, participants, and presentations were determined.
RESULTS: Participants completed a total of 1134 reflection forms. Factor analysis revealed a 2-dimensional model (eigenvalue; Cronbach α): minimal reflection (1.19; 0.77) and high reflection (2.51; 0.81). Item mean (SD) scores ranged from 2.97 (1.17) to 4.01 (0.83) on a 5-point scale. Interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) for individual items ranged from 0.58 (95% CI, 0.31-0.78) to 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94). Reflection scores were associated with presenters' speaking effectiveness (P<.001) and prior CME teaching experience (P=.02), participants' prior clinical experiences (P<.001), and presentations that were case based (P<.001) and used the audience response system (P<.001).
CONCLUSION: We report the first validated measure of reflection on CME at medical grand rounds. Reflection scores were associated with presenters' effectiveness and prior teaching experience, participants' clinical exposures, and presentations that were interactive and clinically relevant. Future research should determine whether reflection on CME leads to better patient outcomes.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective validation study of presenters and faculty at the weekly medical grand rounds at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2011. Eight items (5-point Likert scales) were developed on the basis of 4 reflection levels: habitual action, understanding, reflection, and critical reflection. Factor analysis was performed to account for clustered data. Interrater and internal consistency reliabilities were calculated. Associations between reflection scores and characteristics of presenters, participants, and presentations were determined.
RESULTS: Participants completed a total of 1134 reflection forms. Factor analysis revealed a 2-dimensional model (eigenvalue; Cronbach α): minimal reflection (1.19; 0.77) and high reflection (2.51; 0.81). Item mean (SD) scores ranged from 2.97 (1.17) to 4.01 (0.83) on a 5-point scale. Interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) for individual items ranged from 0.58 (95% CI, 0.31-0.78) to 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94). Reflection scores were associated with presenters' speaking effectiveness (P<.001) and prior CME teaching experience (P=.02), participants' prior clinical experiences (P<.001), and presentations that were case based (P<.001) and used the audience response system (P<.001).
CONCLUSION: We report the first validated measure of reflection on CME at medical grand rounds. Reflection scores were associated with presenters' effectiveness and prior teaching experience, participants' clinical exposures, and presentations that were interactive and clinically relevant. Future research should determine whether reflection on CME leads to better patient outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app