Search

Abstract Background Reflection on professional experience is increasingly accepted as a critical attribute for health care practice; however, evidence that it has a positive impact on performance remains scarce. This study investigated whether, after allowing for the effects of knowledge and consultation skills, reflection had an independent effect on students’ ability to solve problem cases. Methods Data was collected from 362 undergraduate medical students at Ghent University solving video cases and reflected on the experience of doing so. For knowledge and consultation skills results on a progress test and a course teaching consultation skills were used respectively. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was used to test the relationship between the quality of case-solving (dependent variable) and reflection skills, knowledge, and consultation skills (dependent variables). Results Only students with data on all variables available (n = 270) were included for analysis. The model was significant (Anova F(3,269) = 11.00, p Conclusion Medical students’ reflection had a small but significant effect on case-solving, which supports reflection as an attribute for performance. These findings suggest that it would be worthwhile testing the effect of reflection skills training on clinical competence.

Abstract Background Reflection is a meta-cognitive process, characterized by: 1. Awareness of self and the situation; 2. Critical analysis and understanding of both self and the situation; 3. Development of new perspectives to inform future actions. Assessors can only access reflections indirectly through learners’ verbal and/or written expressions. Being privy to the situation that triggered reflection could place reflective materials into context. Video-cases make that possible and, coupled with a scoring rubric, offer a reliable way of assessing reflection. Methods Fourth and fifth year undergraduate medical students were shown two interactive video-cases and asked to reflect on this experience, guided by six standard questions. The quality of students’ reflections were scored using a specially developed Student Assessment of Reflection Scoring rubric (StARS®). Reflection scores were analyzed concerning interrater reliability and ability to discriminate between students. Further, the intra-rater reliability and case specificity were estimated by means of a generalizability study with rating and case scenario as facets. Results Reflection scores of 270 students ranged widely and interrater reliability was acceptable (Krippendorff’s alpha = 0.88). The generalizability study suggested 3 or 4 cases were needed to obtain reliable ratings from 4th year students and ≥ 6 cases from 5th year students. Conclusion Use of StARS® to assess student reflections triggered by standardized video-cases had acceptable discriminative ability and reliability. We offer this practical method for assessing reflection summatively, and providing formative feedback in training situations.

Abstract Background Within the 52 health districts in South Africa, the family physician is seen as the clinical leader within a multi-professional district health team. Family physicians must be competent to meet 90% of the health needs of the communities in their districts. The eight university departments of Family Medicine have identified five unit standards, broken down into 85 training outcomes, for postgraduate training. The family medicine registrar must prove at the end of training that all the required training outcomes have been attained. District health managers must be assured that the family physician is competent to deliver the expected service. The Colleges of Medicine of South Africa (CMSA) require a portfolio to be submitted as part of the uniform assessment of all registrars applying to write the national fellowship examinations. This study aimed to achieve a consensus on the contents and principles of the first national portfolio for use in family medicine training in South Africa. Methods A workshop held at the WONCA Africa Regional Conference in 2009 explored the purpose and broad contents of the portfolio. The 85 training outcomes, ideas from the WONCA workshop, the literature, and existing portfolios in the various universities were used to develop a questionnaire that was tested for content validity by a panel of 31 experts in family medicine in South Africa, via the Delphi technique in four rounds. Eighty five content items (national learning outcomes) and 27 principles were tested. Consensus was defined as 70% agreement. For those items that the panel thought should be included, they were also asked how to provide evidence for the specific item in the portfolio, and how to assess that evidence. Results Consensus was reached on 61 of the 85 national learning outcomes. The panel recommended that 50 be assessed by the portfolio and 11 should not be. No consensus could be reached on the remaining 24 outcomes and these were also omitted from the portfolio. The panel recommended that various types of evidence be included in the portfolio. The panel supported 26 of the 27 principles, but could not reach consensus on whether the portfolio should reflect on the relationship between the supervisor and registrar. Conclusion A portfolio was developed and distributed to the eight departments of Family Medicine in South Africa, and the CMSA, to be further tested in implementation.

Abstract Background Reflection on experience is an increasingly critical part of professional development and lifelong learning. There is, however, continuing uncertainty about how best to put principle into practice, particularly as regards assessment. This article explores those uncertainties in order to find practical ways of assessing reflection. Discussion We critically review four problems: 1. Inconsistent definitions of reflection; 2. Lack of standards to determine (in)adequate reflection; 3. Factors that complicate assessment; 4. Internal and external contextual factors affecting the assessment of reflection. Summary To address the problem of inconsistency, we identified processes that were common to a number of widely quoted theories and synthesised a model, which yielded six indicators that could be used in assessment instruments. We arrived at the conclusion that, until further progress has been made in defining standards, assessment must depend on developing and communicating local consensus between stakeholders (students, practitioners, teachers, supervisors, curriculum developers) about what is expected in exercises and formal tests. Major factors that complicate assessment are the subjective nature of reflection's content and the dependency on descriptions by persons being assessed about their reflection process, without any objective means of verification. To counter these validity threats, we suggest that assessment should focus on generic process skills rather than the subjective content of reflection and where possible to consider objective information about the triggering situation to verify described reflections. Finally, internal and external contextual factors such as motivation, instruction, character of assessment (formative or summative) and the ability of individual learning environments to stimulate reflection should be considered.

Copyright of Tropical Medicine & International Health is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)