‘What would my peers say?’ Comparing the opinion-based method with the prediction-based method in Continuing Medical Education course evaluation
Background: Although medical courses are frequently evaluated via surveys with Likert scales ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” low response rates limit their utility. In undergraduate medical education, a new method with students predicting what their peers would say, required f...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Canadian Medical Education Journal
2024-04-01
|
| Series: | Canadian Medical Education Journal |
| Online Access: | https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/view/77580 |
| _version_ | 1827276198253690880 |
|---|---|
| author | Jamie S Chua Merel van Diepen Marjolijn D Trietsch Friedo W Dekker Johanna Schönrock-Adema Jacqueline Bustraan |
| author_facet | Jamie S Chua Merel van Diepen Marjolijn D Trietsch Friedo W Dekker Johanna Schönrock-Adema Jacqueline Bustraan |
| author_sort | Jamie S Chua |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Background: Although medical courses are frequently evaluated via surveys with Likert scales ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” low response rates limit their utility. In undergraduate medical education, a new method with students predicting what their peers would say, required fewer respondents to obtain similar results. However, this prediction-based method lacks validation for continuing medical education (CME), which typically targets a more heterogeneous group than medical students.
Methods: In this study, 597 participants of a large CME course were randomly assigned to either express personal opinions on a five-point Likert scale (opinion-based method; n = 300) or to predict the percentage of their peers choosing each Likert scale option (prediction-based method; n = 297). For each question, we calculated the minimum numbers of respondents needed for stable average results using an iterative algorithm. We compared mean scores and the distribution of scores between both methods.
Results: The overall response rate was 47%. The prediction-based method required fewer respondents than the opinion-based method for similar average responses. Mean response scores were similar in both groups for most questions, but prediction-based outcomes resulted in fewer extreme responses (strongly agree/disagree).
Conclusions: We validated the prediction-based method in evaluating CME. We also provide practical considerations for applying this method.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T06:39:04Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-9a9f125a7947458aa8598be0cc7510fa |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1923-1202 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T06:39:04Z |
| publishDate | 2024-04-01 |
| publisher | Canadian Medical Education Journal |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Canadian Medical Education Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-9a9f125a7947458aa8598be0cc7510fa2024-04-23T04:14:26ZengCanadian Medical Education JournalCanadian Medical Education Journal1923-12022024-04-0110.36834/cmej.77580‘What would my peers say?’ Comparing the opinion-based method with the prediction-based method in Continuing Medical Education course evaluationJamie S Chua0Merel van Diepen1Marjolijn D Trietsch2Friedo W Dekker3Johanna Schönrock-Adema4Jacqueline Bustraan5Leiden University Medical CenterLeiden University Medical CenterLeiden University Medical CenterLeiden University Medical CenterUniversity of Groningen and University Medical Center GroningenLeiden University Medical Center Background: Although medical courses are frequently evaluated via surveys with Likert scales ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” low response rates limit their utility. In undergraduate medical education, a new method with students predicting what their peers would say, required fewer respondents to obtain similar results. However, this prediction-based method lacks validation for continuing medical education (CME), which typically targets a more heterogeneous group than medical students. Methods: In this study, 597 participants of a large CME course were randomly assigned to either express personal opinions on a five-point Likert scale (opinion-based method; n = 300) or to predict the percentage of their peers choosing each Likert scale option (prediction-based method; n = 297). For each question, we calculated the minimum numbers of respondents needed for stable average results using an iterative algorithm. We compared mean scores and the distribution of scores between both methods. Results: The overall response rate was 47%. The prediction-based method required fewer respondents than the opinion-based method for similar average responses. Mean response scores were similar in both groups for most questions, but prediction-based outcomes resulted in fewer extreme responses (strongly agree/disagree). Conclusions: We validated the prediction-based method in evaluating CME. We also provide practical considerations for applying this method. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/view/77580 |
| spellingShingle | Jamie S Chua Merel van Diepen Marjolijn D Trietsch Friedo W Dekker Johanna Schönrock-Adema Jacqueline Bustraan ‘What would my peers say?’ Comparing the opinion-based method with the prediction-based method in Continuing Medical Education course evaluation Canadian Medical Education Journal |
| title | ‘What would my peers say?’ Comparing the opinion-based method with the prediction-based method in Continuing Medical Education course evaluation |
| title_full | ‘What would my peers say?’ Comparing the opinion-based method with the prediction-based method in Continuing Medical Education course evaluation |
| title_fullStr | ‘What would my peers say?’ Comparing the opinion-based method with the prediction-based method in Continuing Medical Education course evaluation |
| title_full_unstemmed | ‘What would my peers say?’ Comparing the opinion-based method with the prediction-based method in Continuing Medical Education course evaluation |
| title_short | ‘What would my peers say?’ Comparing the opinion-based method with the prediction-based method in Continuing Medical Education course evaluation |
| title_sort | what would my peers say comparing the opinion based method with the prediction based method in continuing medical education course evaluation |
| url | https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/view/77580 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jamieschua whatwouldmypeerssaycomparingtheopinionbasedmethodwiththepredictionbasedmethodincontinuingmedicaleducationcourseevaluation AT merelvandiepen whatwouldmypeerssaycomparingtheopinionbasedmethodwiththepredictionbasedmethodincontinuingmedicaleducationcourseevaluation AT marjolijndtrietsch whatwouldmypeerssaycomparingtheopinionbasedmethodwiththepredictionbasedmethodincontinuingmedicaleducationcourseevaluation AT friedowdekker whatwouldmypeerssaycomparingtheopinionbasedmethodwiththepredictionbasedmethodincontinuingmedicaleducationcourseevaluation AT johannaschonrockadema whatwouldmypeerssaycomparingtheopinionbasedmethodwiththepredictionbasedmethodincontinuingmedicaleducationcourseevaluation AT jacquelinebustraan whatwouldmypeerssaycomparingtheopinionbasedmethodwiththepredictionbasedmethodincontinuingmedicaleducationcourseevaluation |