Literature DB >> 8014746

Evaluating generalist education programs: a conceptual framework. Generalist program evaluation working group.

L V Rubenstein1, A Fink, L Gelberg, C Berkowitz, A Robbins, T S Inui.   

Abstract

This paper provides and applies a conceptual framework and a list of guiding principles for evaluation of generalist education programs. Programs are systematic efforts to achieve specified objectives. Evaluations gather data in order to improve or appraise programs and have a continuum of purposes and methods. Descriptive evaluations characterize the structures, processes, and outcomes of programs; research evaluations definitively assess the effectiveness of a program in terms of outcomes. Intermediate outcomes are changes in knowledge, attitudes, and skills of program participants; conclusive outcomes reflect the quality of performance of graduates in actual clinical situations. Outcomes are affected by inputs--the qualities of students entering the program. Guiding principles of program evaluation ensure that data gathered are useful. The authors illustrate the guiding principles with an actual pilot study that determined that expert pediatricians, general internists, and family practitioners could agree on key generalist competencies and that explores evaluation design based on these competencies. Finally, they consider the implications of undertaking generalist education evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8014746     DOI: 10.1007/bf02598120

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  15 in total

1.  Setting standards of performance for program evaluations: the case of the teaching hospital general medicine group practice program.

Authors:  A Fink; J Kosecoff; R H Brook
Journal:  Eval Program Plann       Date:  1986

2.  Primary care: the future for pediatric education.

Authors:  J J Alpert
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 7.124

3.  Primary care physician supply and the medically underserved. A status report and recommendations.

Authors:  R M Politzer; D L Harris; M H Gaston; F Mullan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-07-03       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  An experiment in medical education. A critical analysis using traditional criteria.

Authors:  L J Goodman; E E Brueschke; R C Bone; W H Rose; E J Williams; H A Paul
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-05-08       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals. Amplifications and explanations.

Authors:  J C Bailar; F Mosteller
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  The quality of medical care.

Authors:  A Donabedian
Journal:  Science       Date:  1978-05-26       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  The case for using industrial quality management science in health care organizations.

Authors:  G Laffel; D Blumenthal
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1989-11-24       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The doctor is in.

Authors:  R G Petersdorf
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 6.893

9.  Objective evaluation of endoscopy skills during training.

Authors:  O W Cass; M L Freeman; C J Peine; R T Zera; G R Onstad
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Solving our primary care crisis by retraining specialists to gain specific primary care competencies.

Authors:  G D Lundberg; R D Lamm
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-07-21       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Osler's choice: one person's perspective on the past and future of internal medicine.

Authors:  C S Bryan
Journal:  Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc       Date:  2000

Review 2.  Teaching and learning methods for new generalist physicians.

Authors:  L Headrick; A Kaufman; P Stillman; L Wilkerson; R Wigton
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 5.128

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.