A Collaborative: The Stanford Medical Education Research Group

Welcome to the School of Medicine's Medical Education Research & Evaluation Group Blog. Meetings are Thursdays from 10:15 to 11:45 a.m. This blog is used to announce agenda items, document research discussions, and share ideas and information about publications, presentations and conferences. This site is maintained by the Division of Evaluation. Questions? Contact Dr. Fetterman (davidf@stanford.edu). Assistance with postings? Contact Ms. Jennifer Berry (jenberry@stanford.edu)

Friday, November 30, 2007

Guest Presenter James Priest. The focus of this weeks session was on a study of rounds. The study will be conducted at Stanford and the University of Washington.

James presented a clear picture of his planned study. Medical education research and evaluation members provided a useful critique.

Neil helped identify critical variables to consider. Clarence recommended a formula for analyzing the data.

The second half of the session focused on the introduction of new survey questions for the quarterly e*Value course evaluations. A few of the added questions focus on attendance and stress. These questions have implications for the design and implementation of the curriculum. The decision to change the existing survey had philosophical implications.

There are two philosophical camps associated with changes in evaluation machinery (survey questions): the traditionalists and modernist. The traditionalist holds on to the past because it has worked. There is merit in this position because it ensures that the same questions are posed over time - allowing us to track change over time. The modernist understands the importance of changing existing traditions or survey questions to reflect changes in the curriculum. The modernist keeps the evaluation system alive and relevant to stakeholders. The current philosophical position adopted is a combination of both traditions - keeping most of the key questions to allow for long term comparisons, asking some questions annually instead of quarterly (since they were not high yield questions), and replace some questions with completely new ones to reflect current changes and test current questions.

The session like most was engaging and productive.


Post a Comment

<< Home