Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27274021›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2016

Assessment-based health informatics curriculum improvement.

Eta S Berner, Amanda D Dorsey, Robert L Garrie, Haiyan Qu

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Celebrating Eta Berner and her influence on biomedical and health informatics.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  3. Clinical informatics training in medical school education curricula: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Focusing on informatics education.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eta S BernerProfessor and Director, Center for Health Informatics for Patient Safety/Quality, Department of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA eberner@uab.edu.
Amanda D DorseyDepartment of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Robert L GarrieDepartment of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Haiyan QuDepartment of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveInformatics programs need assurance that their curricula prepare students for intended roles as well as ensuring that students have mastered the appropriate competencies. The objective of this study is to describe a method for using assessment data to identify areas for curriculum, student selection, and assessment improvement. MATERIALS AND

methodsA multiple-choice examination covering the content in the Commission for Health Accreditation of Informatics and Information Management Education curricular facets/elements was developed and administered to 2 cohorts of entering students prior to the beginning of the program and to the first cohort after completion of the first year's courses. The reliability of the examination was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Content validity was assessed by having 2 raters assess the match of the items to the Commission for Health Accreditation of Informatics and Information Management Education requirements. Construct validation included comparison of exam performance of instructed vs uninstructed students. Criterion-related validity was assessed by examining the relationship of background characteristics to exam performance and by comparing examination performance to graduate Grade Point Average (GPA).

resultsReliability of the examination was 0.91 and 0.82 (Cohort 1 pre/post-tests) and 0.43 (Cohort 2 pretest). Both raters judged 76% of the test items as appropriate. There were statistically significant differences between the instructed (Cohort 1 post-test) and uninstructed (Cohort 2 pretest) students (t = 2.95 P < .01), as well as between the Cohort 1 pre/post-tests (t = 6.52, P < .001). Neither the background variables nor the graduate GPA were significantly correlated with the examination scores.

conclusionWe found that the examination had generally good psychometric properties and the exceptions could be used to identify areas for curriculum and assessment improvement.

Indexed as

CurriculumEducational MeasurementEducation, GraduateMedical InformaticsPsychometricsUnited Statesassessmentcurriculumeducationexaminationinformatics

Identifiers

PMID27274021
PMCPMC9397513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.