Using the cumulative deviation method for cross-institutional benchmarking in the Berlin progress test

Abstract

The Berlin Progress Test has grown to a cooperation of 13 universities. Recently, comparisons between the participating schools became an area of high interest. Muijtjens et al. [Muijtjens AM, Schuwirth LWT, Cohen-Schotanus J, Thoben AJNM, van der Vleuten CPM. 2008a. Benchmarking by cross-institutional comparison of student achievement in a progress test. Med Educ 41(1):82-88; Muijtjens AM, Schuwirth LWT, Cohen-Schotanus J, van der Vleuten CPM. 2008b. Differences in knowledge development exposed by multi-curricular progress test data. Adv Health Sci Educ 13:593-605] proposed a method for cross-institutional benchmarking based on progress test data. Progress testing has some major advantages as it delivers longitudinal information about student's growth of knowledge. By adopting the procedure of Muijtjens et al. ( 2008a , b), we were able to replicate the basic characteristics of the cumulative deviation method. Besides the advantages of the method, there are some difficulties as errors of measurement are not independent, which violates the premises of testing statistical differences.

Empathy in senior year and first year medical students: a cross-sectional study

“…The total variance explained by the three dimensions of empathy was 37.4% which is similar to the values reported in the literature [17]. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) revealed that the model with "no correlated errors" (Fit Model A) displayed poor fit index values, based on the χ2/df ratio, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Aproximation (RMSEA) [27,28].…”

“…Recent cross-sectional studies in Japan and Korea found the highest values for measures of empathy, by year of medical school, in senior students [15,16]. A cross-sectional study in Iran did not find variations in empathy [17]. The effect of undergraduate medical training on the development of medical students' empathy remains unclear.…”

“…The face validity, construct and content validity, criterion-related validity, and reliability of the scale have been demonstrated for the original English version in the USA [11,19]. The student version of JSPE has been adapted to several countries and languages [11,15-17,19-21] including Portugal [22]. Although the JSPE student version assesses the students' orientation towards empathy, JSPE measures have been found to be associated with behaviours of empathy [4].…”

Comparative cross-sectional study of empathy among first year and final year medical students in Jimma University, Ethiopia: Steady state of the heart and opening of the eyes

“…Similar to emotional empathy score, this may be also associated with the training in medical education or experience during the clinical years. Similar studies have found contradicting findings in this regard; studies in Japan and Korea found the highest values for measures of empathy, by year of medical school, among senior medical students [7,36] while another study in Iran did not find variations in empathy [37]. This difference might be attributed to the instruments used; since, in the Korean study they measured clinical empathy than general empathy.…”

Associations between Medical Student Empathy and Personality: A Multi-Institutional Study

“…Empathy is related to understanding patients feelings and, not surprisingly, patients who feel understood are more likely to fully explain their symptoms and to engage in the patient-physician relationship [8]. The multiple definitions of empathy in the medical education literature [9] characterize empathy as a mix of cognitive - understanding patient emotions and communicating the understanding back to the patients - and affective dimensions - emotional responses to patient feelings [10], [11]. The cognitive dimension is amenable to training and therefore an important mission of medical schools is that of caring for and enhancing the empathy of medical students [12]–[15].…”