Evaluation of self-directed clinical education: validation of an instrument

Abstract

Quality is a multidimensional construct. Self-report evaluation of real patient learning is feasible, and could be capitalised on to promote reflective self-direction. The social and material context of learning is an important dimension of educational quality.

Manchester Clinical Placement Index (MCPI). Conditions for medical students’ learning in hospital and community placements

“…The format was identical to our previously reported scale (Dornan et al 2004, 2006). The response format was 0–6 Likert scales (disagree-agree) with an option to enter free text.…”

“…Following the American Education Research Association approach to providing validity evidence (American Education Research Association and American Psychological Association 1999) as applied to medical education (Beckman et al 2005) the instrument’s content validity of items rests on Communities of Practice (Wenger 1998) and eXBL (Dornan et al 2007, 2009) theories, so it reads theories as well as the research and practitioner engagement that went into developing the instrument (Dornan et al 2004, 2006, 2003). We have previously published a theoretical and empirical justification for the way we use learner self-report response processes in this study (Dornan et al 2004). This paper reports the internal structure and interrelationship of the measure’s variables.…”

“…Items were in the same form as our previous measure, naming a construct, defining the construct in terms of how it might affect a student’s learning, presenting a positively worded statement for respondents to (dis)agree with, providing the scale for them to enter their ratings, and inviting them to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of their placement in terms of that construct. We chose only to use positively worded items because the alternating positively and negatively worded format of our first generation scale (Dornan et al 2004) was found by respondents to be very confusing. A specimen item is shown in Box 1, the full set of items used in this study are summarised briefly in Table 1, and the questionnaire we recommend for future use is included as “Appendix’’.…”

“…To achieve the aim, we tested an 11-item scale based on our own previously published development work (Dornan et al 2004, 2006, 2003). Objectives were to examine the psychometric properties of the scale when applied to (1) hospital and (2) community COPs, and (3) recommend how it could be used to measure the quality of placements.…”

How can medical students learn in a self-directed way in the clinical environment? Design-based research

“…The 86 free text entries on 91 uses of iSUS by group 1 and 2 students were extracted, anonymously, for qualitative analysis. Anonymised textual responses from group 1, 2 and 3 students in an end‐of‐module evaluation questionnaire 13 were extracted. TD facilitated semistructured group discussions with group 1 and 2 students at the beginning and end of their placement, asking for their conceptions of self‐direction and, in the exit discussions, their opinions on how iSUS had affected them.…”