Gerald Schynoll1,2, Justin Perog1,3, Paul J Feustel1,4, Raymond Smith1,5. 1. All authors are with Albany Medical College. 2. is Associate Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency, and Associate Professor of Medicine. 3. is Team-Based Learning Coordinator, Internal Medicine Residency. 4. is Professor, Department of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics. 5. is Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency, and Professor of Medicine.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Team-based learning (TBL) is an alternative to traditional lectures in graduate medical education, but evidence is scarce regarding its impact on knowledge acquisition and standardized testing performance. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between resident performance on the Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) and these 2 educational methods. METHODS: In 2013, the internal medicine residency program at Albany Medical College transitioned from a lecture-based curriculum to TBL. Residents enrolled in academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 comprised the lecture cohort, and those enrolled in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 the TBL cohort. Covariates included the type of medical school attended, gender, and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores. We performed univariate analysis and multivariable regression to determine the association between covariates and ITE scores. RESULTS: Of 120 residents, 60 were in the lecture cohort and 60 in the TBL cohort. The IM-ITE percent correct scores were higher with TBL than lecture (PGY-1 61.0% vs 55.0%, P < .001; PGY-2 69.0% vs 59.7%, P < .001; PGY-3 73.2% vs 61.7%, P < .001). In a multivariable regression analysis of 3 PGYs combined, the transition from lecture to TBL resulted in an increase in IM-ITE Z-score of 0.415 (P < .001), equivalent to 0.415 SD, when including the effects of all covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a lecture-based curriculum, TBL was associated with improved resident medical knowledge acquisition as evidenced by higher IM-ITE scores.
BACKGROUND: Team-based learning (TBL) is an alternative to traditional lectures in graduate medical education, but evidence is scarce regarding its impact on knowledge acquisition and standardized testing performance. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between resident performance on the Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) and these 2 educational methods. METHODS: In 2013, the internal medicine residency program at Albany Medical College transitioned from a lecture-based curriculum to TBL. Residents enrolled in academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 comprised the lecture cohort, and those enrolled in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 the TBL cohort. Covariates included the type of medical school attended, gender, and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores. We performed univariate analysis and multivariable regression to determine the association between covariates and ITE scores. RESULTS: Of 120 residents, 60 were in the lecture cohort and 60 in the TBL cohort. The IM-ITE percent correct scores were higher with TBL than lecture (PGY-1 61.0% vs 55.0%, P < .001; PGY-2 69.0% vs 59.7%, P < .001; PGY-3 73.2% vs 61.7%, P < .001). In a multivariable regression analysis of 3 PGYs combined, the transition from lecture to TBL resulted in an increase in IM-ITE Z-score of 0.415 (P < .001), equivalent to 0.415 SD, when including the effects of all covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a lecture-based curriculum, TBL was associated with improved resident medical knowledge acquisition as evidenced by higher IM-ITE scores.
Authors: Kavita S Warrier; Jocelyn H Schiller; Nicole R Frei; Hilary M Haftel; Jennifer G Christner Journal: Teach Learn Med Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.414
Authors: Maxine A Papadakis; Gerald K Arnold; Linda L Blank; Eric S Holmboe; Rebecca S Lipner Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-06-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Furman S McDonald; Daniel Jurich; Lauren M Duhigg; Miguel Paniagua; Davoren Chick; Margaret Wells; Amber Williams; Patrick Alguire Journal: Acad Med Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 6.893