4.6 Article

Recommendations for Reporting Mastery Education Research in Medicine (ReMERM)

Journal

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
Volume 90, Issue 11, Pages 1509-1514

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000933

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Guidelines for reporting several types of medical studies have been described in the literature. However, there are no current guidelines to report studies on mastery learning curriculum development and trainee evaluation in medical education. Such guidelines will be important because medical education is moving toward a competency-based model. The authors sought to define standards for the evaluation of mastery learning curricula using previously published guidelines in related fields and expert review. The authors reviewed previously published guidelines from clinical medicine, medical education, and the social sciences. Six authors with expertise in mastery learning curricula, performance assessment, and medical education compiled and reached agreement about a list of guidelines. The authors later circulated the list to 12 other experts and made revisions. A final list of guidelines was established and received group consensus. The Reporting Mastery Education Research in Medicine (ReMERM) guidelines have 22 categories with 38 items considered to be imperative for reporting a mastery learning research study. Details about each item, with a specific focus on those unique to mastery learning, are discussed. The ReMERM guidelines highlight the importance of developing rigorous curricula that embody reliable measures which yield valid decisions about achievement among medical learners. These guidelines should improve the quality of reporting and help educators, authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and readers to better understand and evaluate mastery learning research. With this shift to competency-based medical education, the ReMERM guidelines should help meet medical educators' needs to achieve these new goals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available