MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Improving Participant Feedback to Continuing Medical Education Presenters in Internal Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Study
Improving Participant Feedback to Continuing Medical Education Presenters in Internal Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Improving Participant Feedback to Continuing Medical Education Presenters in Internal Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Study
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Improving Participant Feedback to Continuing Medical Education Presenters in Internal Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Study
Improving Participant Feedback to Continuing Medical Education Presenters in Internal Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Study

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Improving Participant Feedback to Continuing Medical Education Presenters in Internal Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Study
Improving Participant Feedback to Continuing Medical Education Presenters in Internal Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Study
Journal Article

Improving Participant Feedback to Continuing Medical Education Presenters in Internal Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Study

2012
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
BACKGROUND Feedback is essential for improving the skills of continuing medical education (CME) presenters. However, there has been little research on improving the quality of feedback to CME presenters. OBJECTIVES To validate an instrument for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback from a national cross-section of participants to presenters at a large internal medicine CME course. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A prospective, randomized validation study with qualitative data analysis that included all 317 participants at a Mayo Clinic internal medicine CME course in 2009. MEASUREMENTS An 8-item (5-point Likert scales) CME faculty assessment enhanced study form (ESF) was designed based on literature and expert review. Course participants were randomized to a standard form, a generic study form (GSF), or the ESF. The dimensionality of instrument scores was determined using factor analysis to account for clustered data. Internal consistency and interrater reliabilities were calculated. Associations between overall feedback scores and presenter and presentation variables were identified using generalized estimating equations to account for multiple observations within talk and speaker combinations. Two raters reached consensus on qualitative themes and independently analyzed narrative entries for evidence of balanced and behavior-specific comments. RESULTS Factor analysis of 5,241 evaluations revealed a uni-dimensional model for measuring CME presenter feedback. Overall internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.94) and internal consistency reliability (ICC range 0.88–0.95) were excellent. Feedback scores were associated with presenters’ academic ranks (mean score): Instructor (4.12), Assistant Professor (4.38), Associate Professor (4.56), Professor (4.70) (p = 0.046). Qualitative analysis revealed that the ESF generated the highest numbers of balanced comments (GSF = 11, ESF = 26; p = 0.01) and behavior-specific comments (GSF = 64, ESF = 104; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS We describe a practical and validated method for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback for CME presenters in internal medicine. Our simple method for prompting course participants to give balanced and behavior-specific comments may ultimately provide CME presenters with feedback for improving their presentations.