Search

As any field evolves, so do journals' expectations from authors. As Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage in Health Professions Education (HPE) has evolved, Medical Teacher 's expectations have changed, and previously-accepted paper types are now routinely rejected. This commentary gives some guidance for authors currently submitting AI in HPE papers to Medical Teacher .

Investigates the differences of student performance between computerized and paper-and-pen multiple-choice tests and assesses the extent and effect of "computer anxiety." Uses the LXR.TEST 5.1 software for computerized tests and suggests that computer-based assessment could be used with confidence for the purposes of ranking students, but care should be taken in using it for grading. (Contains 39 references.) (Author/YDS)

Purpose: The primary objective was to inventory what is currently known about faculty development (FD) for competency-based medical educations (CBME) and identify gaps in the literature. Methods: A scoping review methodology was employed. Inclusion criteria for article selection were established with two reviewers completing a full-text analysis. Quality checks were included, along with iterative consultation on data collection and consensus decision making via a grounded theory approach. Results: The review identified 19 articles published between 2009 and 2018. Most articles ( N  = 15) offered suggestions as to what should happen with FD in CBME, but few ( N  = 4) adopted an experimental design. Six main themes were identified with three main features of FD noted across themes: (1) The importance of direct and timely feedback to faculty members on their teaching and assessment skills. (2) The role of establishing shared mental models for CBME curricula. (3) That FD is thought of longitudinally, not as a one-time bolus. Conclusion: This work illustrates that there is limited, high quality research in FD for CBME. Future FD activities should consider employing a longitudinal and multi-modal program format that includes feedback for the faculty participants on their teaching and assessments skills, including the development of faculty coaching skills.

Introduction: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of electronic recording with paper-based recording of clinical skills assessments for entry-level health professional students. Methods: A comprehensive database search was undertaken using AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science on 12–16 June 2017, and updated 9 April 2018. Studies investigating electronic and paper-based recordings of clinical skills assessments of students in entry-level health professional programs were eligible for inclusion. Two independent researchers completed screening of studies for inclusion, quality assessments, and data extraction, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Quality assessment was performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Diagnostic checklist. Results: From 2264 studies identified, five observational cohort studies were included. Published between 2006 and 2016, included studies investigated electronic and paper examinations of clinical skills assessments of students from medical, dentistry, and physical therapy programs. Electronic assessments were reported to be more time efficient than paper-based assessments with an added advantage of no missing data. Quality and quantity of quantitative and qualitative student feedback increased with electronic assessment compared to paper-based assessments. Conclusions: Electronic assessments were used successfully across a range of health professional programs, take significantly less time to complete and provide higher quality feedback to students. Future studies are needed with more robust psychometric testing and cost-effective analysis to inform the increasing uptake of electronic assessment tools in health professional training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]