The 2011 <scp>P</scp>rogram <scp>E</scp>valuation <scp>S</scp>tandards: a framework for quality in medical education programme evaluations

Ruhe, Valerie; Boudreau, J. Donald

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01879.x

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mini Evaluation Exercise assesses the medical residency's professional behavior from the clinical supervisor's perspective [7,8]. Our search of the literature, however, could not find a tool that was developed to assess professional behavior and clinical competencies development from a graduate perspective, although they are one of the stakeholders in medical education [9].…”

Section: Many Evaluation Tools Have Been Developed To Assess a Doctormentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of an evaluation tool to assess professional behavior and clinical competencies from the graduates’ perspective

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to develop an evaluation tool for assessing professional behavior and clinical competencies from the graduates' perspective. Methods: This study employed mixed method in a sequential exploratory design. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with three graduates from different cohorts. The qualitative analysis of the interviews found six emerging themes for professional behavior and clinical competencies development. These themes were then developed into a 55-item questionnaire. The questionnaire was then distributed to 84 medical graduates for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) from February to April 2019. The quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS ver. 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA) for principal axis factoring. After conducting EFA, we proceeded with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with another 120 graduates to validate the tool. Results: Eighty-four graduates completed the questionnaire for EFA. Upon completion of EFA, 35 out of 55 items of the questionnaire were found to be valid and reliable. The most appropriate fit was seven factors, which explained 58.18% of variance between them after 15 iterations with Cronbach's α of 0.916. The personal satisfaction factor was noted to be weak. It was therefore added to patient management factor due to its similar intention. The final EFA factor after the modification was six. The CFA found that 34 out of 35 items was valid and reliable that representation of the latent variables. Conclusion: The questionnaire has achieved the desired construct validity score and can be used as an evaluation tool to assess professional behavior and clinical competencies from the graduates' perspective.

show abstract

Section: Many Evaluation Tools Have Been Developed To Assess a Doctormentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of an evaluation tool to assess professional behavior and clinical competencies from the graduates’ perspective

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Ruhe and Boudreau stress that evaluations should be shaped by stakeholders values, perspectives and needs, which may be diffuse or implicit, and that the use of evaluation findings is optimized when they are brought into the open through dialogue. 33 In a (self-)reflective and thus hermeneutic learning practice, dialogue is crucial: the evaluator should invite people to develop new, shared ways of seeing and acting together. Dialogue therefore implies consensus, based upon shared meanings and stories.…”

Section: A Participatory Approach To Cess Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Clinical Ethics Support: A Participatory Approach

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current process towards formalization within evaluation research, in particular the use of pre-set standards and the focus on predefined outcomes, implies a shift of ownership from the people who are actually involved in real clinical ethics support services (CESS) in a specific context to external stakeholders who increasingly gain a say in what 'good CESS' should look like. The question is whether this does justice to the insights and needs of those who are directly involved in actual CESS practices, be it as receivers or providers. We maintain that those actually involved in concrete CESS practices should also be involved in its evaluation, not only as respondents, but also in setting the agenda of the evaluation process and in articulating the criteria by which CESS is evaluated. Therefore, we propose a participatory approach to CESS evaluation. It focuses on (1) the concrete contexts in which CESS takes place, (2) reflective and dialogical learning processes, and (3) how to be democratic and inclusive. In particular, this approach to CESS evaluation is akin to realist evaluation, dialogical evaluation, and responsive evaluation. An example of a participatory approach to evaluating CESS is presented and some critical issues concerning this approach are discussed.

show abstract

“…(Posner, 2004). While evaluating a curriculum, some reviewers may use CIPP, Logic, or any other model relevant to curriculum evaluation (Frye & Hemmer, 2012;Ruhe & Boudreau, 2013). If a reviewer uses the CIPP model, which involves the evaluation of context, input, process, and product of a program's value, curriculum viability can provide a road map for evaluating different areas of the curriculum with an additional value of already defined inhibitors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Curriculum Viability Indicators: A Delphi Study to Determine Standards and Inhibitors of a Curriculum

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Curriculum evaluation is typically done by using quality standards defined by accrediting bodies. This does not include inhibitors that hinder the achievement of standards. Hence, to address both standards and inhibitors, we have coined the new concept of “curriculum viability.” This study establishes consensus among experts on curriculum viability indicators, i.e. standards and inhibitors, and aims to provide a framework for evaluating the curriculum viability. The study was done in two phases. In the first phase, a consensus was established on the curriculum viability indicators using the Modified Delphi Technique using two rounds. In the first round of the Delphi process, 25 experts participated, which were reduced to 19 in the second round. After two rounds, experts developed a consensus on 40 out of 44 items. These included 27 standards and 13 inhibitors. In the second phase, 18 experts rank-ordered the indicators according to their relative importance in the areas of educational content and strategies, faculty, leadership, assessment, students, educational/working environment, communication, and technology. The list of indicators provides a framework for evaluating the curriculum viability, and their ordering enables curriculum managers to prioritize them during curriculum evaluation.

show abstract

The 2011 Program Evaluation Standards: a framework for quality in medical education programme evaluations

Abstract: Based on our experience, the third edition needs to be used as a reference document in all stages of evaluations of medical education programmes.

Cited by 18 publications

References 13 publications

The development of an evaluation tool to assess professional behavior and clinical competencies from the graduates’ perspective

The development of an evaluation tool to assess professional behavior and clinical competencies from the graduates’ perspective

Evaluating Clinical Ethics Support: A Participatory Approach

Curriculum Viability Indicators: A Delphi Study to Determine Standards and Inhibitors of a Curriculum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About