Literature DB >> 19892295

Approaches to professional behaviour assessment: tools in the professionalism toolbox.

Walther N K A van Mook1, Simone L Gorter, Helen O'Sullivan, Valerie Wass, Lambert W Schuwirth, Cees P M van der Vleuten.   

Abstract

There is general agreement that professionalism and professional behaviour should be (formatively and summatively) assessed, but consensus on how this should be done is still lacking. After discussing some of the remaining issues and questions regarding professionalism assessment, this article discusses the importance of qualitative comments to the assessment of professional behaviour, focuses on the currently most frequently used tools, as well as stresses the need for triangulation (combining) of these tools.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19892295     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2009.07.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Intern Med        ISSN: 0953-6205            Impact factor:   4.487


  11 in total

1.  Measuring professional behaviour in canadian physical therapy students' objective structured clinical examinations: an environmental scan.

Authors:  Robyn Davies; Cindy Ellerton; Cathy Evans
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.037

2.  Professionalism and Communication Education in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine: The Learner Perspective.

Authors:  David A Turner; Geoffrey M Fleming; Margaret Winkler; K Jane Lee; Melinda F Hamilton; Christoph P Hornik; Toni Petrillo-Albarano; Katherine Mason; Richard Mink
Journal:  Acad Pediatr       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.107

3.  Professional behaviours demonstrated by undergraduate dental students using an incident reporting system.

Authors:  C L Taylor; N J A Grey
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-05-22       Impact factor: 1.626

4.  Web-assisted assessment of professional behaviour in problem-based learning: more feedback, yet no qualitative improvement?

Authors:  Walther N K A van Mook; Arno M M Muijtjens; Simone L Gorter; Jan Harm Zwaveling; Lambert W Schuwirth; Cees P M van der Vleuten
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2011-05-01       Impact factor: 3.853

5.  Are pediatric critical care medicine fellowships teaching and evaluating communication and professionalism?

Authors:  David A Turner; Richard B Mink; K Jane Lee; Margaret K Winkler; Sara L Ross; Christoph P Hornik; Jennifer J Schuette; Katherine Mason; Stephanie A Storgion; Denise M Goodman
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.624

6.  A Systematic Review of the Quality and Utility of Observer-Based Instruments for Assessing Medical Professionalism.

Authors:  Yu Heng Kwan; Kelly Png; Jie Kie Phang; Ying Ying Leung; Hendra Goh; Yi Seah; Julian Thumboo; A/P Swee Cheng Ng; Warren Fong; Desiree Lie
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2018-12

7.  Designing faculty development to support the evaluation of resident competency in the intrinsic CanMEDS roles: practical outcomes of an assessment of program director needs.

Authors:  Derek Puddester; Colla J MacDonald; Debbie Clements; Jane Gaffney; Lorne Wiesenfeld
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 2.463

8.  Construct validity test of evaluation tool for professional behaviors of entry-level occupational therapy students in the United States.

Authors:  Hon K Yuen; Andres Azuero; Kaitlin W Lackey; Nicole S Brown; Sangita Shrestha
Journal:  J Educ Eval Health Prof       Date:  2016-06-01

9.  The professionalism of psychiatry registrars as perceived by patients and various health practitioners at Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital, Pretoria.

Authors:  Matthews M Banda; Werdie C W van Staden
Journal:  S Afr J Psychiatr       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 1.550

10.  "Who writes what?" Using written comments in team-based assessment to better understand medical student performance: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Jonathan Samuel White; Nishan Sharma
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.