BACKGROUND: Assessing the effectiveness of quality improvement curricula is important to improving this area of resident education. OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool (QIKAT) to differentiate between residents who were provided instruction in QI and those who were not, when scored by individuals not involved in designing the QIKAT, its scoring rubric, or QI curriculum instruction. METHODS: The QIKAT and a 9-item self-assessment of QI proficiency were administered to an intervention and a control group. The intervention was a longitudinal curriculum consisting of 8 hours of didactic QI training and 6 workshops providing just-in-time training for resident QI projects. Two uninvolved faculty scored the QIKAT. RESULTS: A total of 33 residents in the intervention group and 27 in the control group completed the baseline and postcurriculum QIKAT and self-assessment. QIKAT mean intervention group scores were significantly higher than mean control group scores postcurriculum (P < .001). Absolute QIKAT differences were small (of 15 points, intervention group improved from a mean score of 12.8 to 13.2). Interrater agreement as measured by kappa test was low (0.09). Baseline self-assessment showed no differences, and after instruction, the intervention group felt more proficient in QI knowledge than controls in 4 of 9 domains tested. CONCLUSIONS: The QIKAT detected a statistically significant improvement postintervention, but the absolute differences were small. Self-reported gain in QI knowledge and proficiency agreed with the results of the QIKAT. However, QIKAT limitations include poor interrater agreement and a scoring rubric that lacks specificity. Programs considering using QIKAT to assess curricula should understand these limitations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Assessing the effectiveness of quality improvement curricula is important to improving this area of resident education. OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool (QIKAT) to differentiate between residents who were provided instruction in QI and those who were not, when scored by individuals not involved in designing the QIKAT, its scoring rubric, or QI curriculum instruction. METHODS: The QIKAT and a 9-item self-assessment of QI proficiency were administered to an intervention and a control group. The intervention was a longitudinal curriculum consisting of 8 hours of didactic QI training and 6 workshops providing just-in-time training for resident QI projects. Two uninvolved faculty scored the QIKAT. RESULTS: A total of 33 residents in the intervention group and 27 in the control group completed the baseline and postcurriculum QIKAT and self-assessment. QIKAT mean intervention group scores were significantly higher than mean control group scores postcurriculum (P < .001). Absolute QIKAT differences were small (of 15 points, intervention group improved from a mean score of 12.8 to 13.2). Interrater agreement as measured by kappa test was low (0.09). Baseline self-assessment showed no differences, and after instruction, the intervention group felt more proficient in QI knowledge than controls in 4 of 9 domains tested. CONCLUSIONS: The QIKAT detected a statistically significant improvement postintervention, but the absolute differences were small. Self-reported gain in QI knowledge and proficiency agreed with the results of the QIKAT. However, QIKAT limitations include poor interrater agreement and a scoring rubric that lacks specificity. Programs considering using QIKAT to assess curricula should understand these limitations.
Authors: Christopher M Wittich; Thomas J Beckman; Monica M Drefahl; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Darcy A Reed; Bryan J Krajicek; Rudy M Haddad; Furman S McDonald; Joseph C Kolars; Kris G Thomas Journal: Med Educ Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Carl A Patow; Kelly Karpovich; Lee Ann Riesenberg; Joseph Jaeger; Joel C Rosenfeld; Mary Wittenbreer; Jamie S Padmore Journal: Acad Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Romsai T Boonyasai; Donna M Windish; Chayan Chakraborti; Leonard S Feldman; Haya R Rubin; Eric B Bass Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-09-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: James L Leenstra; Thomas J Beckman; Darcy A Reed; William C Mundell; Kris G Thomas; Bryan J Krajicek; Stephen S Cha; Joseph C Kolars; Furman S McDonald Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-06-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Samuel J Ridout; Kathryn K Ridout; Brian Theyel; Lisa M Shea; Lauren Weinstock; Lisa A Uebelacker; Gary Epstein-Lubow Journal: Acad Psychiatry Date: 2020-01-21