■提高医学生的实习水平取决于能够可靠地评估学生如何体验临床学习环境。本科临床教育环境措施(UCEEM)是一种越来越多地使用的经过验证的工具,旨在允许进行此类评估。本研究旨在进一步表征UCEEM与定性评估的关系。
■在一家医院安置的学生被邀请在实施创新的新安置结构之前和之后完成UCEEM。此外,焦点小组被用来收集他们经验的定性数据.开发了一种新的协议,用定性数据对UCEEM的输出进行三角化.
■UCEEM显示出良好的内部一致性(Cronbach\'sAlpha0.79-0.91)和内部相关性。干预措施的实施在整体UCEEM分数(P=.008)和“工作中的学习和监督质量”(P=.048)方面取得了显着改善,“学生入学准备”(P=.033)和“工作场所互动模式和学生融入”(P=.039)域。定性数据与UCEEM输出的三角剖分表明,UCEEM允许通过公开提问评估一些无法达到的看法。然而,学生对UCEEM项目的混合解释导致主题和挑战的混淆,从而得出分数背后的含义。24个UCEEM项目中的14个项目似乎就是这种情况。
■这项调查增加了支持UCEEM作为经过验证的工具的文献。它还阐明了研究者在使用时需要注意的定性数据的局限性和关系。
UNASSIGNED: Improving medical student placements relies on being able to reliably evaluate how students experience clinical learning environments. The Undergraduate Clinical Education Environment Measure (UCEEM) is an increasingly used validated tool designed to allow such evaluations. This study aims to further characterize how the UCEEM relates to qualitative evaluation.
UNASSIGNED: Students on placement at one hospital were invited to complete the UCEEM before and after the implementation of an innovative new placement structure. Additionally, focus groups were employed to collect qualitative data on their experiences. a novel protocol to triangulate the output of the UCEEM with the qualitative data was developed.
UNASSIGNED: The UCEEM showed good internal consistency (Cronbach\'s Alpha 0.79-0.91) and internal correlation. Implementation of the intervention created significant improvements in the overall UCEEM scores (P = .008) and in the \"Learning in and through work and quality of supervision\" (P = .048), \"Preparedness for student entry\" (P = .033) and \"Workplace interaction patterns and student inclusion\" (P = .039) domains. The triangulation of qualitative data with UCEEM output showed that the UCEEM allowed evaluation of some perceptions not reached through open questioning. However, mixed interpretations of UCEEM items by students led to the conflation of themes and challenges in deriving the meaning behind the score. This appeared to be the case for 14 of the 24 UCEEM items.
UNASSIGNED: This investigation adds to the literature supporting the UCEEM as a validated tool. It also elucidates the limitations and relationships to qualitative data that investigators need to be aware of in its use.