Susan Miles1, Louise Swift, Sam J Leinster. 1. Norwich Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. susan.miles@uea.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) was published in 1997 as a tool to evaluate educational environments of medical schools and other health training settings and a recent review concluded that it was the most suitable such instrument. AIMS: This study aimed to review the settings and purposes to which the DREEM has been applied and the approaches used to analyse and report it, with a view to guiding future users towards appropriate methodology. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted using the Web of Knowledge databases of all articles reporting DREEM data between 1997 and 4 January 2011. RESULTS: The review found 40 publications, using data from 20 countries. DREEM is used in evaluation for diagnostic purposes, comparison between different groups and comparison with ideal/expected scores. A variety of non-parametric and parametric statistical methods have been applied, but their use is inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: DREEM has been used internationally for different purposes and is regarded as a useful tool by users. However, reporting and analysis differs between publications. This lack of uniformity makes comparison between institutions difficult. Most users of DREEM are not statisticians and there is a need for informed guidelines on its reporting and statistical analysis.
BACKGROUND: The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) was published in 1997 as a tool to evaluate educational environments of medical schools and other health training settings and a recent review concluded that it was the most suitable such instrument. AIMS: This study aimed to review the settings and purposes to which the DREEM has been applied and the approaches used to analyse and report it, with a view to guiding future users towards appropriate methodology. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted using the Web of Knowledge databases of all articles reporting DREEM data between 1997 and 4 January 2011. RESULTS: The review found 40 publications, using data from 20 countries. DREEM is used in evaluation for diagnostic purposes, comparison between different groups and comparison with ideal/expected scores. A variety of non-parametric and parametric statistical methods have been applied, but their use is inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: DREEM has been used internationally for different purposes and is regarded as a useful tool by users. However, reporting and analysis differs between publications. This lack of uniformity makes comparison between institutions difficult. Most users of DREEM are not statisticians and there is a need for informed guidelines on its reporting and statistical analysis.
Authors: Jia Min Hee; Hong Wei Yap; Zheng Xuan Ong; Simone Qian Min Quek; Ying Pin Toh; Stephen Mason; Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nor Iza A Rahman; Aniza Abd Aziz; Zainal Zulkifli; Muhammad Arshad Haj; Farah Hanani Binti Mohd Nasir; Sharvina Pergalathan; Muhammad Ismail Hamidi; Salwani Ismail; Nordin Bin Simbak; Mainul Haque Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract Date: 2015-03-24