4.6 Article

The relationship of learning environment, quality of life, and study strategies measures to anesthesiology resident academic performance

Journal

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
Volume 104, Issue 6, Pages 1467-1472

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000261505.77657.d3

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: We designed this study to determine the academic performance of anesthesia residents as related to their differential characteristics on some affective-motivational variables, represented by perceptions about their educational environment , subjective quality of life, and learning and study strategies. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 63 anesthesia residents who completed the World Health Organization Quality of Life Inventory, the Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure, the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory, and a progress test on basic sciences on two to four measurement occasions during a 2-year period. A growth curve model was fit to the academic performance. Mantel-Haenszel tests identified independent predictors of academic performance on progress tests. RESULTS: Mean rating at the first measuring occasion was 41%. There was a statistically significant improvement over time (slope = 7% per 6-m period; P < 0.01). Analysis of the random effects showed significant individual differences in the intercept. The residents' scores improved at an equivalent rate over the course of the residency. The independent predictors of academic performance were anxiety, motivation, and ability in selecting main ideas. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge growth on basic sciences during anesthesia residency is significantly associated to the level of anxiety related to study and achievement, to the motivation for learning and for personal improvement, and to the ability in selecting main ideas from subject matters to which residents are exposed during learning episodes.

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