Joseph LaMantia1, Lalena M Yarris2,3, Kharmene Sunga3, Moshe Weizberg4, Danielle Hart5, Gino Farina1, Elliot Rodriguez6, Raymond Lucas7, Zayan Mahmooth8, Alexandra Snock8, Jocelyn Lockyear9. 1. Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine Hempstead NY. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine Oregon Health and Science University Portland OR. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine Mayo Clinic College of Medicine Rochester MN. 4. Staten Island University Hospital Northwell Health Staten Island NY. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine Hennepin County Medical Center & University of Minnesota Minneapolis MN. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine Upstate Medical University Syracuse NY. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine George Washington University Washington DC. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine North Shore University Hospital Manhasset NY. 9. Department of Community Health Sciences Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Multisource feedback (MSF) has potential value in learner assessment, but has not been broadly implemented nor studied in emergency medicine (EM). This study aimed to adapt existing MSF instruments for emergency department implementation, measure feasibility, and collect initial validity evidence to support score interpretation for learner assessment. METHODS: Residents from eight U.S. EM residency programs completed a self-assessment and were assessed by eight physicians, eight nonphysician colleagues, and 25 patients using unique instruments. Instruments included a five-point rating scale to assess interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, and patient care. MSF feasibility was measured by percentage of residents who collected the target number of instruments. To develop internal structure validity evidence, Cronbach's alpha was calculated as a measure of internal consistency. RESULTS: A total of 125 residents collected a mean of 7.0 physician assessments (n = 752), 6.7 nonphysician assessments (n = 775), and 17.8 patient assessments (n = 2,100) with respective response rates of 67.2, 75.2, and 77.5%. Cronbach's alpha values for physicians, nonphysicians, patients, and self were 0.97, 0.97, 0.96, and 0.96, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that MSF implementation is feasible, although challenging. The tool and its scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency. EM educators may find the adaptation process and tools applicable to their learners.
OBJECTIVES: Multisource feedback (MSF) has potential value in learner assessment, but has not been broadly implemented nor studied in emergency medicine (EM). This study aimed to adapt existing MSF instruments for emergency department implementation, measure feasibility, and collect initial validity evidence to support score interpretation for learner assessment. METHODS: Residents from eight U.S. EM residency programs completed a self-assessment and were assessed by eight physicians, eight nonphysician colleagues, and 25 patients using unique instruments. Instruments included a five-point rating scale to assess interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, and patient care. MSF feasibility was measured by percentage of residents who collected the target number of instruments. To develop internal structure validity evidence, Cronbach's alpha was calculated as a measure of internal consistency. RESULTS: A total of 125 residents collected a mean of 7.0 physician assessments (n = 752), 6.7 nonphysician assessments (n = 775), and 17.8 patient assessments (n = 2,100) with respective response rates of 67.2, 75.2, and 77.5%. Cronbach's alpha values for physicians, nonphysicians, patients, and self were 0.97, 0.97, 0.96, and 0.96, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that MSF implementation is feasible, although challenging. The tool and its scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency. EM educators may find the adaptation process and tools applicable to their learners.
Authors: Joan M Sargeant; Karen V Mann; Suzanne N Ferrier; Donald B Langille; Philip D Muirhead; Vonda M Hayes; Douglas E Sinclair Journal: Acad Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: David A Davis; Paul E Mazmanian; Michael Fordis; R Van Harrison; Kevin E Thorpe; Laure Perrier Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John C Burkhardt; Kendra P Parekh; Fiona E Gallahue; Kory S London; Mary A Edens; A J Humbert; M Tyson Pillow; Sally A Santen; Laura R Hopson Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2020-11-20
Authors: John W Ragsdale; Andrea Berry; Jennifer W Gibson; Christiane R Herber-Valdez; Lauren J Germain; Deborah L Engle Journal: Med Educ Online Date: 2020-12
Authors: Christine R Stehman; Steven Hochman; Madonna Fernández-Frackelton; Emilio G Volz; Rui Domingues; Jeffrey N Love; William Soares Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2019-12-19
Authors: Sedigheh Najafipour; Sara Mortaz Hejri; Alireza Nikbakht Nasrabadi; Mir Saeed Yekaninejad; Mandana Shirazi; Ali Labaf; Mohammad Jalili Journal: Med J Islam Repub Iran Date: 2020-09-24