Search

Phenomenon: Given the growing number of medical science educators, an examination of institutions' promotion criteria related to educational excellence and scholarship is timely. This study investigates the extent to which medical schools' promotion criteria align with published standards for documenting and evaluating educational activities. Approach: This document analysis systematically analyzed promotion and tenure (P&T) guidelines from U.S. medical schools. Criteria and promotion expectations (related to context, quantity, quality, and engagement) were explored across five educational domains including: (i) teaching, (ii) curriculum/program development, (iii) mentoring/advising, (iv) educational leadership/administration, and (v) educational measurement and evaluation, in addition to research/scholarship and service. After independent review and data extraction, paired researchers compared findings and reached consensus on all discrepancies prior to final data submission. Descriptive statistics assessed the frequency of referenced promotion criteria. Findings: Promotion-related documents were retrieved from 120 (of 185) allopathic and osteopathic U.S. medical schools. Less than half of schools (43%; 52 of 120) documented a well-defined education-related pathway for advancement in academic rank. Across five education-specific domains, only 24% (12 of 50) of the investigated criteria were referenced by at least half of the schools. The least represented domain within P&T documents was "Educational Measurement and Evaluation." P&T documents for 47% of schools were rated as "below average" or "very vague" in their clarity/specificity. Insights: Less than 10% of U.S. medical schools have thoroughly embraced published recommendations for documenting and evaluating educational excellence. This raises concern for medical educators who may be evaluated for promotion based on vague or incomplete promotion criteria. With greater awareness of how educational excellence is currently documented and how promotion criteria can be improved, education-focused faculty can better recognize gaps in their own documentation practices, and more schools may be encouraged to embrace change and align with published recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A battery of various psychometric assessments has been conducted on script concordance tests (SCTs) that are purported to measure data interpretation, an essential component of clinical reasoning. Although the breadth of published SCT research is broad, best practice controversies and evidentiary gaps remain.Purposes: In this study, SCT data were used to test the psychometric properties of 6 scoring methods. In addition, this study explored whether SCT items clustered by difficulty and type were able to discriminate between medical training levels.Methods: SCT scores from a problem-solving SCT (SCT-PS;n= 522) and emergency medicine SCT (SCT-EM;n= 1,040) were collected at a large institution of medicine. Item analyses were performed to optimize each dataset. Items were categorized into difficulty levels and organized into types. Correlational analyses, one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and one-way ANOVA were conducted to explore study aims.Results: All 6 scoring methods differentiated between training levels. Longitudinal analysis of SCT-PS data reported that MS4s significantly (p< .001) outperformed their scores as MS2s in all difficulty categories. Cross-sectional analysis of SCT-EM data reported significant differences (p< .001) between experienced EM physicians, EM residents, and MS4s at each level of difficulty. Items categorized by type were also able to detect training level disparities.Conclusions: Of the 6 scoring methods, 5-point scoring solutions generated more reliable measures of data interpretation than 3-point scoring methods. Data interpretation abilities were a function of experience at every level of item difficulty. Items categorized by type exhibited discriminatory power providing modest evidence toward the construct validity of SCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reduction in contact hours has led to the use of more efficient teaching approaches in medical education, yet the efficacy of such approaches is often not fully investigated. Purpose: This work provides a detailed analysis of alternating group dissections with peer-teaching in Medical Anatomy (MA). Methods: MA I and II percentages of the alternating (ALT) and nonalternating (NALT) groups were compared, scores of ALT subgroups (A and B) were compared, and subgroup performance on practical exam questions was compared. Results: MA I and MA II percentages indicated no significant difference in median scores (pMAI= 0.581, pMAII= 0.223) between ALT and NALT. Subgroup analysis and assessment of question types showed that student performance and ability to identify a structure were not dependent on dissection group assignment. Conclusion: Alternating dissections offered students more unscheduled time for independent learning activities, such as studying or shadowing preceptors, and reduced student-to-cadaver and student-to-faculty ratios by 50%. Alternating dissections with peer teaching were not detrimental to student performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]