4.6 Editorial Material

Employing a Root Cause Analysis Process to Improve Examination Quality

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 94, 期 1, 页码 71-75

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002439

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Michigan Medical School
  2. American Medical Association Accelerating Change in Medical Education Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Problem Multiple-choice question (MCQ) examinations represent a primary mode of assessment used by medical schools. It can be challenging for faculty to produce content-aligned, comprehensive, and psychometrically sound MCQs. Despite best efforts, sometimes there are unexpected issues with examinations. Assessment best practices lack a systematic way to address gaps when actual and expected outcomes do not align. Approach The authors propose using root cause analysis (RCA) to systematically review unexpected educational outcomes. Using a real-life example of a class's unexpectedly low reproduction examination scores (University of Michigan Medical School, 2015), the authors describe their RCA process, which included a system flow diagram, a fishbone diagram, and an application of the 5 Whys to understand the contributors and reasons for the lower-than-expected performance. Using this RCA approach, the authors identified multiple contributing factors that potentially led to the low examination scores. These included lack of examination quality improvement (QI) for poorly constructed items, content-question and pedagogy-assessment misalignment, and other issues related to environment and people. Outcomes As a result of the RCA, the authors worked with stakeholders to address these issues and develop strategies to prevent similar systematic issues from reoccurring. For example, a more robust examination QI process was developed. Next Steps Using an RCA approach in health care is grounded in practice and can be easily adapted for assessment. Because this is a novel use of RCA, there are opportunities to expand beyond the authors' initial approach for using RCA in assessment.

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