OBJECTIVES: Program evaluation remains a critical but underutilized step in medical education. This study compared traditional and retrospective pre-post self-assessment methods to objective learning measures to assess which correlated better to actual learning. METHODS: Forty-seven medical students participated in a 4-hour pediatric resuscitation course. They completed pre and post self-assessments on pediatric resuscitation and two distracter topics. Postcourse, students also retrospectively rated their understanding as it was precourse (the "retrospective pre" instrument). Changes in traditional and retrospective pre- to postcourse self-assessment measures were compared to an objectives-based multiple-choice exam. RESULTS: The traditional pre to post self-assessment means showed an increase from 1.9 of 5 to 3.7 of 5 (p < 0.001); the retrospective pre to post scores also increased from 1.9 of 5 to 3.7 of 5 (p < 0.001). Although the group means were the same, individual participants demonstrated a response shift by either increasing or decreasing their traditional pre to retrospective pre scores. Scores on the 22-item objective multiple choice test also increased, from a median score of 13.0 to 18.0 (p < 0.001). There was no correlation between the change in self-assessments and objective measures as demonstrated by a Spearman correlation of -0.02 and -0.13 for the traditional and retrospective pre-post methods, respectively. Students reported fewer changes on the two distracters using the retrospective pre-post versus the traditional method (11 vs. 29). CONCLUSIONS: Students were able to accurately identify, but not quantify, learning using either traditional or retrospective pre-post "self-assessment" measures. Retrospective pre-post self-assessment was more accurate in excluding perceived change in understanding of subject matter that was not taught.
OBJECTIVES: Program evaluation remains a critical but underutilized step in medical education. This study compared traditional and retrospective pre-post self-assessment methods to objective learning measures to assess which correlated better to actual learning. METHODS: Forty-seven medical students participated in a 4-hour pediatric resuscitation course. They completed pre and post self-assessments on pediatric resuscitation and two distracter topics. Postcourse, students also retrospectively rated their understanding as it was precourse (the "retrospective pre" instrument). Changes in traditional and retrospective pre- to postcourse self-assessment measures were compared to an objectives-based multiple-choice exam. RESULTS: The traditional pre to post self-assessment means showed an increase from 1.9 of 5 to 3.7 of 5 (p < 0.001); the retrospective pre to post scores also increased from 1.9 of 5 to 3.7 of 5 (p < 0.001). Although the group means were the same, individual participants demonstrated a response shift by either increasing or decreasing their traditional pre to retrospective pre scores. Scores on the 22-item objective multiple choice test also increased, from a median score of 13.0 to 18.0 (p < 0.001). There was no correlation between the change in self-assessments and objective measures as demonstrated by a Spearman correlation of -0.02 and -0.13 for the traditional and retrospective pre-post methods, respectively. Students reported fewer changes on the two distracters using the retrospective pre-post versus the traditional method (11 vs. 29). CONCLUSIONS: Students were able to accurately identify, but not quantify, learning using either traditional or retrospective pre-post "self-assessment" measures. Retrospective pre-post self-assessment was more accurate in excluding perceived change in understanding of subject matter that was not taught.
Authors: David R Steeb; Monica L Miller; Ellen M Schellhase; Jodie V Malhotra; Jacqueline E McLaughlin; Sarah A Dascanio; Stuart T Haines Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Christy D Di Frances; Ellen Childs; Jessica L Fetterman; Andrea C Villanti; Cassandra A Stanton; Abigail R Russo; Glenn A Hirsch; Amy C Solis; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Rebecca T Brown; Cyrus Ahalt; Josette Rivera; Irena Stijacic Cenzer; Angela Wilhelm; Brie A Williams Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ashraf S Harahsheh; Lisa A Hom; Sarah B Clauss; Russell R Cross; Amy R Curtis; Rachel D Steury; Stephanie J Mitchell; Gerard R Martin Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Lindsay F Schwartz; Clarence H Braddock; Roy L Kao; Myung-Shin Sim; Jacqueline N Casillas Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Priscilla Elias Ferreira da Silva; Gerson Dos Santos Fonseca Junior; Roberta Bianchi Ambrozio; Monique Gomes Salles Tiburcio Costa; Gabrielly Borges Machado; Silvio Fernando Guimarães de Carvalho; Edward José de Oliveira; David Calhau Jorge; Luciana de Almeida Silva Teixeira Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 2.345