4.6 Article

A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis

期刊

BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03208-x

关键词

Faculty development; Evaluation; Indicator

资金

  1. Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF)
  2. Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces a practice guide for evaluating longitudinal faculty development programs based on the 5x2-D backward planning faculty development model. The comprehensive nature of this tool makes it an ideal evaluation tool for self-assessment or external quality assurance for longitudinal FDP.
Background This is a practice guide for the evaluation tool specifically created to objectively evaluate longitudinal faculty development programs (FDP) using the 5x2 -D backward planning faculty development model. It was necessary to create this tool as existing evaluation methods are designed to evaluate linear faculty development models with a specific endpoint. This backward planning approach is a cyclical model without an endpoint, consisting of 5 dynamic steps that are flexible and interchangeable, therefore can be a base for an evaluation tool that is objective and takes into account all the domains of the FDP in contrast to the existing, traditional, linear evaluation tools which focus on individual aspects of the program. The developed tool will target evaluation of longitudinal faculty development programs regardless of how they were planned. Methodology Deductive qualitative grounded theory approach was used. Evaluation questions were generated and tailored based on the 5 x 2-D model followed by 2 Delphi rounds to finalize them. Based on the finalized evaluation questions from the results of the Delphi rounds, two online focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to deduce the indicators, data sources and data collection method. Results Based on the suggested additions, the authors added 1 new question to domains B, with a total of 42 modifications, such as wording changes or discarding or merging questions. Some domains received no comments, therefore, were not included in round 2. For each evaluation question, authors generated indicators, data sources and data collection methods during the FGD. Conclusion The methodology used to develop this tool takes into account expert opinions. Comprehensiveness of this tool makes it an ideal evaluation tool during self-evaluation or external quality assurance for longitudinal FDP. After its validation and testing, this practice guide can be used worldwide, along with the provided indicators which can be quantified and used to suit the local context.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据