Rebecca E Rdesinski1, Kathryn G Chappelle2, Diane L Elliot3, Debra K Litzelman4, Ryan Palmer5, Frances E Biagioli6. 1. Research Associate, Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 2. Graduate student in Clinical Psychology, Pacifica Graduate Institute, Carpinteria, California (retired, June 2013, as Assistant Professor, Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon). 3. Professor, Division of Health Promotion and Sports Medicine, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 4. D. Craig Brater Chair of Global Health Education, Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 6. Professor, Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Communication, Curriculum, and Culture (C3) instrument is a well-established survey for measuring the professional learning climate or hidden curriculum in the clinical years of medical school. However, few instruments exist for assessing professionalism in the pre-clinical years. We adapted the C3 instrument and assessed its utility during the pre-clinical years at two U.S. medical schools. METHODS: The ten-item Pre-Clinical C3 survey was adapted from the C3 instrument. Surveys were administered at the conclusion of the first and second years of medical school using a repeated cross-sectional design. Factor analysis was performed and Cronbach's alphas were calculated for emerging dimensions. RESULTS: The authors collected 458 and 564 surveys at two medical schools during AY06-07 and AY07-09 years, respectively. Factor analysis of the survey data revealed nine items in three dimensions: "Patients as Objects", "Talking Respectfully of Colleagues", and "Patient-Centered Behaviors". Reliability measures (Cronbach's alpha) for the Pre-Clinical C3 survey data were similar to those of the C3 survey for comparable dimensions for each school. Gender analysis revealed significant differences in all three dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: The Pre-Clinical C3 instrument's performance was similar to the C3 instrument in measuring dimensions of professionalism. As medical education moves toward earlier and more frequent clinical and inter-professional educational experiences, the Pre-Clinical C3 instrument may be especially useful in evaluating the impact of curricular revisions.
BACKGROUND: The Communication, Curriculum, and Culture (C3) instrument is a well-established survey for measuring the professional learning climate or hidden curriculum in the clinical years of medical school. However, few instruments exist for assessing professionalism in the pre-clinical years. We adapted the C3 instrument and assessed its utility during the pre-clinical years at two U.S. medical schools. METHODS: The ten-item Pre-Clinical C3 survey was adapted from the C3 instrument. Surveys were administered at the conclusion of the first and second years of medical school using a repeated cross-sectional design. Factor analysis was performed and Cronbach's alphas were calculated for emerging dimensions. RESULTS: The authors collected 458 and 564 surveys at two medical schools during AY06-07 and AY07-09 years, respectively. Factor analysis of the survey data revealed nine items in three dimensions: "Patients as Objects", "Talking Respectfully of Colleagues", and "Patient-Centered Behaviors". Reliability measures (Cronbach's alpha) for the Pre-Clinical C3 survey data were similar to those of the C3 survey for comparable dimensions for each school. Gender analysis revealed significant differences in all three dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: The Pre-Clinical C3 instrument's performance was similar to the C3 instrument in measuring dimensions of professionalism. As medical education moves toward earlier and more frequent clinical and inter-professional educational experiences, the Pre-Clinical C3 instrument may be especially useful in evaluating the impact of curricular revisions.
Authors: Katrien Bombeke; Linda Symons; Luc Debaene; Benedicte De Winter; Sandrina Schol; Paul Van Royen Journal: Med Educ Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Edward Krupat; Stephen Pelletier; Erik K Alexander; David Hirsh; Barbara Ogur; Richard Schwartzstein Journal: Acad Med Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.893