Journal of educational evaluation for health professions
-
J Educ Eval Health Prof · Jan 2019
Comparative StudyEvaluation of student perceptions with 2 interprofessional assessment tools-the Collaborative Healthcare Interdisciplinary Relationship Planning instrument and the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale-following didactic and clinical learning experiences in the United States.
This study investigated changes in students' attitudes using 2 validated interprofessional survey instruments-the Collaborative Healthcare Interdisciplinary Relationship Planning (CHIRP) instrument and the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale (IPAS)-before and after didactic and clinical cohorts. ⋯ The IPAS instrument may discern changes in student attitudes in the subdomain of teamwork, roles, and responsibilities following short-term clinical experiences involving diverse interprofessional team members.
-
J Educ Eval Health Prof · Jan 2019
Factors influencing the career preferences of medical students and interns: a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey from India.
The study aimed to identify the motivational factors and demographic variables influencing the career preferences of medical students in India. ⋯ This study provides insights into the motivational factors that influence the career preferences of Indian medical students and interns. A robust longitudinal study would be required to study intra-individual variations in preferences and the persistence of choices.
-
J Educ Eval Health Prof · Jan 2019
How do medical students actually think while solving problems in three different types of clinical assessments in Korea: Clinical performance examination (CPX), multimedia case-based assessment (CBA), and modified essay question (MEQ).
This study aimed to explore students' cognitive patterns while solving clinical problems in three different types of assessments - clinical performance examination (CPX), multimedia case-based assessment (CBA), and modified essay question (MEQ) - and thus, to understand how different types of assessments can afford different thinking. ⋯ This study discovered that different assessment design affords different thinking in problem-solving. This finding can contribute to leveraging ways of improving current clinical assessments. Importantly, the research method used in this study can be utilized as an alternative way of examining the validity of clinical assessments.