Rethinking programme evaluation in health professions education: Beyond 'did it work?'

Medical Education

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 342-351

  Haji, Faizal ^a,b,c   Morin, Marie Paule ^b,d   Parker, Kathryn ^a,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^c LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

^e HOLLAND BLOORVIEW KIDS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HISTORY; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL PROFESSION; METHODOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CURRICULUM; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; HEALTH OCCUPATIONS; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROGRAM EVALUATION;

EID: 84875018057     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: 13652923     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/medu.12091     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Parker K, Burrows G, Nash H, Rosenblum ND. Going beyond Kirkpatrick in evaluating a clinician scientist programme: it's not 'if it works' but 'how it works'. Acad Med 2011;86 (11):1389-96.
2. Yardley S, Dornan T. Kirkpatrick's levels and education 'evidence'. Med Educ 2011;46 (1):97-106.
3. Kirkpatrick D. Evaluation of training. In: Craig RL, Bittel LR, eds. Training and Development Handbook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill 1967;87-112.
4. Dixon J. Evaluation criteria in studies of continuing education in the health professions: a critical review and a suggested strategy. Eval Health Prof 1978;1 (2):47-65.
5. Barr H, Freeth D, Hammick M, Koppel I, Reeves S. Evaluations of Interprofessional Education: A United Kingdom Review of Health and Social Care. London: CAIPE/BERA 2000.
6. Belfield C, Hywel T, Bullock A, Eynon R, Wall D. Measuring effectiveness for best evidence medical education: a discussion. Med Teach 2001;23 (2):164-70.
7. Colliver JA. Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: research and theory. Acad Med 2000;75 (3):259.
8. Marinopoulos SS, Dorman T, Ratanawongsa N, etal. Effectiveness of Continuing Medical Education. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 149. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Research and Quality 2007;1-69.
9. Forsetlund L, Bjørndal A, Rashidian A, Jamtvedt G, O'Brien MA, Wolf F, Davis D, Odgaard-Jensen, Oxman AD Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;2:CD003030.
10. Wilkes M, Bligh J. Evaluating educational interventions. BMJ 1999;318 (7193):1269-72.
11. Cook DA. Twelve tips for evaluating educational programmes. Med Teach 2010;32 (4):296-301.
12. Regehr G. It's NOT rocket science: rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education. Med Educ 2010;44 (1):31-9.
13. Eva KW. The value of paradoxical tensions in medical education research. Med Educ 2010;44 (1):3-4.
14. Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ 2008;42 (2):128-33.
15. Stufflebeam DL, Shinkfield AJ. Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications, 1st edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass 2007;32-41.
16. Alkin M, Christie C. An evaluation theory tree. In: Alkin M, ed. Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists' Views and Influences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 2004;12-65.
17. Goldie J. AMEE education guide no. 29: evaluating educational programmes. Med Teach 2006;28 (3):210-24.
18. Tyler R. General statement on evaluation. J Educ Res 1942;35:492-501.
19. Madaus G, Stufflebeam D. Programme evaluation: a historical overview. In: Stufflebeam DL, Madaus GF, Kellaghan T, eds. Evaluation Models - Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000;3-18.
20. Campbell DT, Stanley J. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, 1st edn. London: Wadsworth Publishing 1963;13-63.
21. Norman G. RCT=results confounded and trivial: the perils of grand educational experiments. Med Educ 2003;37 (7):582-4.
22. Stufflebeam D. The CIPP model for programme evaluation. In: Madaus G, Scriven M, Stufflebeam D, eds. Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000;279-318.
23. Stake RE, Fund JDR. Evaluating the Arts in Education: A Responsive Approach. London: Merrill Publishing 1975;33-58.
24. Curran V, Christopher J, Lemire F, Collins A, Barrett B. Application of a responsive evaluation approach in medical education. Med Educ 2003;37 (3):256-66.
25. Patton MQ. Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 4th edn. London: Sage Publications 2008;35-98.
26. Steinert Y, Cruess S, Cruess R, Snell L. Faculty development for teaching and evaluating professionalism: from programme design to curriculum change. Med Educ 2005;39 (2):127-36.
27. Reeves S, Freeth D. Re-examining the evaluation of interprofessional education for community mental health teams with a different lens: understanding presage, process and product factors. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2006;13 (6):765-70.
28. Al-Khathami A. Evaluation of Saudi family medicine training programme: the application of CIPP evaluation format. Med Teach 2012;34 (Suppl1):81-9.
29. Singh MD. Evaluation framework for nursing education programmes: application of the CIPP model. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh 2004;1:13.
30. Weiss C. Theory-based evaluation: past, present, and future. New Dir Eval 1997;76:41-55.
31. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Leviton LC. Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice, 1st edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications 1990;171-377.
32. Chen HT, Rossi PH. Evaluating with sense: the theory-driven approach. Eval Rev 1983;7 (3):283-302.
33. Hodges BD, Kuper A. Theory and practice in the design and conduct of graduate medical education. Acad Med 2012;87 (1):25-33.
34. Parker K, Shaver J, Hodges B. Intersections of creativity in the evaluation of the Wilson Centre Fellowship Programme. Med Educ 2010;44 (11):1095-104.
35. Norman GR, Schmidt HG. Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: theory, practice and paper darts. Med Educ 2000;34 (9):721-8.
36. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Realist methods in medical education research: what are they and what can they contribute?Med Educ 2011;46(1):89-96.
37. Scriven M. Prose and cons about goal-free evaluation. Am J Eval 1991;12 (1):55-62.
38. Patton M. Developmental evaluation. Am J Eval 1994;15:311-9.
39. Stanfield R. The Art of Focused Conversation. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers 2000;17-29.
40. Ogrinc G, Batalden P. Realist evaluation as a framework for the assessment of teaching about the improvement of care. J Nurs Educ 2009;48 (12):661-7.
41. Dalkin SM, Jones D, Lhussier M, Cunningham B. Understanding integrated care pathways in palliative care using realist evaluation: a mixed methods study protocol. BMJ Open 2012;2 (4):1533.
42. Worthen B, Sanders JR. Educational Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. White Plains, NY: Longman Publications 1987;73.
43. Dijkstra J, van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT. A new framework for designing programmes of assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2010;15 (3):379-93.