Irene Alexandraki1, Robyn E Rosasco2, Arshag D Mooradian3. 1. I. Alexandraki is professor of medicine and course director, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, Florida. 2. R.E. Rosasco is head of research services, Charlotte Edwards Maguire Medical Library, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, Florida. 3. A.D. Mooradian is professor and chair, Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Faculty development (FD) has become increasingly important for clinician-educators. An array of FD programs has been developed, but the impact of these programs on clinician-educators and their learners and workplace is less known. The authors conducted a scoping review to explore the status of program evaluation in FD for clinician-educators to inform future planning and research. METHOD: Five databases were searched for articles published from January 1998 to August 2018 using Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies that described evaluation methods and outcomes of FD programs for clinician-educators were included. Data were collected and organized according to program domain (teaching, research/scholarship, leadership, or a combination of skills). A modified version of the Kirkpatrick model was used to compare results among studies. RESULTS: From a total of 2,091 articles, 1,095 were eligible for full review, and 31 met the inclusion criteria. Seven programs targeted only teaching skills, 3 research/scholarship skills, 7 leadership skills, and 14 a combination of skills. Eighteen programs required the completion of a project; fewer offered fellowships, master's degrees, or certificates. Participant surveys were the most common evaluation method across all domains. Often used metrics included participant satisfaction and self-reported knowledge, skills, behavior changes, scholarly output, and leadership positions. Less common evaluation methods included learner and peer evaluations, interviews, and focus groups. Change at the institutional level was evaluated in 11 programs. CONCLUSIONS: Program evaluation remains an underdeveloped area in FD for clinician-educators. Developers expend significant effort on program design and implementation but approach evaluation less purposefully. Rigorous metrics that align with program goals and are used longitudinally are needed to accurately assess the impact of FD programs on participants and their learners, workplace, and institutions at large.
PURPOSE: Faculty development (FD) has become increasingly important for clinician-educators. An array of FD programs has been developed, but the impact of these programs on clinician-educators and their learners and workplace is less known. The authors conducted a scoping review to explore the status of program evaluation in FD for clinician-educators to inform future planning and research. METHOD: Five databases were searched for articles published from January 1998 to August 2018 using Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies that described evaluation methods and outcomes of FD programs for clinician-educators were included. Data were collected and organized according to program domain (teaching, research/scholarship, leadership, or a combination of skills). A modified version of the Kirkpatrick model was used to compare results among studies. RESULTS: From a total of 2,091 articles, 1,095 were eligible for full review, and 31 met the inclusion criteria. Seven programs targeted only teaching skills, 3 research/scholarship skills, 7 leadership skills, and 14 a combination of skills. Eighteen programs required the completion of a project; fewer offered fellowships, master's degrees, or certificates. Participant surveys were the most common evaluation method across all domains. Often used metrics included participant satisfaction and self-reported knowledge, skills, behavior changes, scholarly output, and leadership positions. Less common evaluation methods included learner and peer evaluations, interviews, and focus groups. Change at the institutional level was evaluated in 11 programs. CONCLUSIONS: Program evaluation remains an underdeveloped area in FD for clinician-educators. Developers expend significant effort on program design and implementation but approach evaluation less purposefully. Rigorous metrics that align with program goals and are used longitudinally are needed to accurately assess the impact of FD programs on participants and their learners, workplace, and institutions at large.