OBJECTIVES In addition to the extrinsic effects of assessment and examinations on students' study habits, testing can have an intrinsic effect on the memory of studied material. Whether this testing effect also applies to skills learning is not known. However, this is especially interesting in view of the need to maximise learning outcomes from costly simulation-based courses. This study was conducted to determine whether testing as the final activity in a skills course increases learning outcome compared with an equal amount of time spent practising the skill.METHODS We carried out a prospective, controlled, randomised, single-blind, post-testonly intervention study, preceded by a similar pre-and post-test pilot study in order to make a power calculation. A total of 140 medical students participating in a mandatory 4-hour in-hospital resuscitation course in the seventh semester were randomised to either the intervention or control group and were invited to participate in an assessment of learning outcome. The intervention course included 3.5 hours of instruction and training followed by 30 minutes of testing. The control course included 4 hours of instruction and training. Participant learning outcomes were assessed 2 weeks after the course in a simulated scenario using a checklist. Total assessment scores were compared between the two groups.RESULTS Overall, 81 of the 140 students volunteered to participate. Learning outcomes were significantly higher in the intervention group (n = 41; mean score 82.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 79.4-86.2) compared with the control group (n = 40; mean score 73.3%, 95% CI 70.5-76.1) (P < 0.001). Effect size was 0.93.CONCLUSIONS Testing as a final activity in a resuscitation skills course for medical students increases learning outcome compared with spending an equal amount of time practising the skills. test-enhanced learning

No abstract

Trained student teachers can be as good as associate professors in teaching clinical skills.

ObjectivesTo achieve international consensus across multiple specialties on a generic ultrasound rating scale using a Delphi technique.MethodsUltrasound experts from Obstetrics-Gynaecology, Surgery, Urology, Radiology, Rheumatology, Emergency Medicine, and Gastro-Enterology representing North America, Australia, and Europe were identified. A multi-round survey was conducted to obtain consensus between these experts. Of 60 invited experts, 44 experts agreed to participate in the first Delphi round, 41 remained in the second round, and 37 completed the third Delphi round. Seven key elements of the ultrasound examination were identified from existing literature and recommendations from international ultrasound societies. All experts rated the importance of these seven elements on a five-point Likert scale in the first round and suggested potential new elements for the assessment of ultrasound skills. In the second round, the experts re-rated all elements and a third round was conducted to allow final comments. Agreement on which elements to include in the final rating scale was pre-defined as more than 80% of the experts rating an element four or five, on importance to the ultrasound examination.ResultsTwo additional elements were suggested by more than 10% of the experts in the first Delphi round. Consensus was obtained to include these two new elements along with five of the original elements in the final assessment instrument: 1) Indication for the examination 2) Applied knowledge of ultrasound equipment 3) Image optimization 4) Systematic examination 5) Interpretation of images 6) Documentation of examination and 7) Medical decision making.ConclusionInternational multispecialty consensus was achieved on the content of a generic ultrasound rating scale. This is the first step to ensure valid assessment of clinicians in different medical specialties using ultrasound.

BackgroundThe goal of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in Competency-based Medical Education (CBME) is to establish a minimal level of competence. The purpose of this study was to 1) to determine the credibility and acceptability of the modified Angoff method of standard setting in the setting of CBME, using the Borderline Group (BG) method and the Borderline Regression (BLR) method as a reference standard; 2) to determine if it is feasible to set different standards for junior and senior residents, and 3) to determine the desired characteristics of the judges applying the modified Angoff method.MethodsThe results of a previous OSCE study (21 junior residents, 18 senior residents, and six fellows) were used. Three groups of judges performed the modified Angoff method for both junior and senior residents: 1) sports medicine surgeons, 2) non-sports medicine orthopedic surgeons, and 3) sports fellows. Judges defined a borderline resident as a resident performing at a level between competent and a novice at each station. For each checklist item, the judges answered yes or no for “will the borderline/advanced beginner examinee respond correctly to this item?” The pass mark was calculated by averaging the scores. This pass mark was compared to that created using both the BG and the BLR methods.ResultsA paired t-test showed that all examiner groups expected senior residents to get significantly higher percentage of checklist items correct compared to junior residents (all stations p < 0.001). There were no significant differences due to judge type. For senior residents, there were no significant differences between the cut scores determined by the modified Angoff method and the BG/BLR method. For junior residents, the cut scores determined by the modified Angoff method were lower than the cut scores determined by the BG/BLR Method (all p < 0.01).ConclusionThe results of this study show that the modified Angoff method is an acceptable method of setting different pass marks for senior and junior residents. The use of this method enables both senior and junior residents to sit the same OSCE, preferable in the regular assessment environment of CBME.

The Paas Scale, TLX and CLC questionnaire appear to be interchangeable as measures of intrinsic cognitive load, but not of total cognitive load. A more complete understanding of the sources of extraneous and germane cognitive loads in simulation-based training contexts is necessary to determine how best to measure and assess their effects on learning and performance outcomes.

This AMEE Guide offers an introduction to research in medical education. It is intended for those who are contemplating conducting research in medical education but are new to the field. The Guide is structured around the process of transforming ideas and problems into researchable questions, choosing a research approach that is appropriate to the purpose of the study and considering the individual researcher's preferences and the contextual possibilities and constraints. The first section of the Guide addresses the rationale for research in medical education and some of the challenges posed by the complexity of the field. Next is a section on how to move from an idea or problem to a research question by placing a concrete idea or problem within a conceptual, theoretical framework. The following sections are structured around an overview model of approaches to medical education research, 'The research compass'. Core to the model is the conceptual, theoretical framework that is the key to any direction. The compass depicts four main categories of research approaches that can be applied when studying medical education phenomena, 'Explorative studies'; 'Experimental studies'; 'Observational studies'; and 'Translational studies'. Future AMEE Guides in the research series will address these approaches in more detail.

Background-Because most cardiac arrests occur at home, widespread training is needed to increase the incidence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by lay persons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of mass distribution of CPR instructional materials among schoolchildren. Methods and Results-We distributed 35 002 resuscitation manikins to pupils (12 to 14 years of age) at 806 primary schools. Using the enclosed 24-minute instructional DVD, they trained in CPR and subsequently used the kit to train family and friends (second tier). They completed a questionnaire on who had trained in CPR using the kit. Teachers also were asked to evaluate the project. The incidence of bystander CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the months following the project was compared with the previous year. In total, 6947 questionnaires (19.8%) were returned. The 6947 kits had been used to train 17 140 from the second tier (mean, 2.5 persons per pupil; 95% confidence interval, 2.4 to 2.5). The teachers had used a mean of 64 minutes (95% confidence interval, 60 to 68) for preparation and a mean of 13 minutes (95% confidence interval, 11 to 15) to tidy up. Incidence of bystander CPR in the months after the project did not increase significantly compared with the previous year (25.0% versus 27.9%; Pϭ0.16). Conclusions-CPR training can be disseminated in a population by distributing personal resuscitation manikins among children in primary schools. The teachers felt able to easily facilitate CPR training. The incidence of bystander CPR did not increase significantly in the months following the project.