Literature DB >> 27699520

Online Radiology Reporting with Peer Review as a Learning and Feedback Tool in Radiology; Implementation, Validity, and Student Impressions.

Fintan J McEvoy1, Nicholas W Shen2,3, Dorte H Nielsen2, Lene E Buelund2, Peter Holm2.   

Abstract

Communicating radiological reports to peers has pedagogical value. Students may be uneasy with the process due to a lack of communication and peer review skills or to their failure to see value in the process. We describe a communication exercise with peer review in an undergraduate veterinary radiology course. The computer code used to manage the course and deliver images online is reported, and we provide links to the executable files. We tested to see if undergraduate peer review of radiological reports has validity and describe student impressions of the learning process. Peer review scores for student-generated radiological reports were compared to scores obtained in the summative multiple choice (MCQ) examination for the course. Student satisfaction was measured using a bespoke questionnaire. There was a weak positive correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.32, p < 0.01) between peer review scores students received and the student scores obtained in the MCQ examination. The difference in peer review scores received by students grouped according to their level of course performance (high vs. low) was statistically significant (p < 0.05). No correlation was found between peer review scores awarded by the students and the scores they obtained in the MCQ examination (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.17, p = 0.14). In conclusion, we have created a realistic radiology imaging exercise with readily available software. The peer review scores are valid in that to a limited degree they reflect student future performance in an examination. Students valued the process of learning to communicate radiological findings but do not fully appreciated the value of peer review.

Keywords:  Education–Medical; Programming languages; Radiology teaching files

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27699520      PMCID: PMC5267598          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-016-9905-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  9 in total

Review 1.  The scope of educational resources for radiologists on the internet.

Authors:  A F Scarsbrook; R N J Graham; R W Perriss
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 2.  Radiology education: a glimpse into the future.

Authors:  A F Scarsbrook; R N J Graham; R W Perriss
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.350

3.  Not knowing that they do not know: self-assessment accuracy of third-year medical students.

Authors:  Vicki Langendyk
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 6.251

4.  Team-based learning at ten medical schools: two years later.

Authors:  Britta M Thompson; Virginia F Schneider; Paul Haidet; Ruth E Levine; Kathryn K McMahon; Linda C Perkowski; Boyd F Richards
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.251

Review 5.  Peer review in diagnostic radiology: current state and a vision for the future.

Authors:  Shmuel Mahgerefteh; Jonathan B Kruskal; Chun S Yam; Arye Blachar; Jacob Sosna
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 5.333

6.  Web-based teaching tool incorporating peer assessment and self-assessment: example of aligned teaching.

Authors:  Fintan J McEvoy; Peter M McEvoy; Eiliv L Svalastoga
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Peer generation of multiple-choice questions: student engagement and experiences.

Authors:  Susan M Rhind; Graham W Pettigrew
Journal:  J Vet Med Educ       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.027

8.  Towards case-based medical learning in radiological decision making using content-based image retrieval.

Authors:  Petra Welter; Thomas M Deserno; Benedikt Fischer; Rolf W Günther; Cord Spreckelsen
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  A workstation-integrated peer review quality assurance program: pilot study.

Authors:  Margaret M O'Keeffe; Todd M Davis; Kerry Siminoski
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 1.930

  9 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Peer Feedback on Collaborative Learning Activities in Veterinary Education.

Authors:  Laura M Dooley; Nicholas J Bamford
Journal:  Vet Sci       Date:  2018-10-17
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.