Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36540567›Full record

ArticleGMS journal for medical education2022

Development of a diagnostic instrument for the assessment of teaching competencies in medicine (FKM_L): First results of the test statistical verification.

Marianne Giesler, Maria Lammerding-Köppel, Jan Griewatz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Marianne GieslerFreiburg, Germany.
Maria Lammerding-KöppelTübingen, Germany.
Jan GriewatzKompetenzzentrum für Hochschuldidaktik in Medizin Baden-Württemberg, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This project report describes the development of the Methods: Global questions and in-depth items were formulated for each of the sub-competencies of the six core competencies of the KLM model. Depending on the number of sub-competencies, there are 3-4 subscales for each core competency, comprising 69 items in total. Data from 90 participants of medical didactic courses were analysed. Item analyses supported the hypothesized scales. Results: The internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha: CR-α) of the 22 subscales ranged from CR-α=.70 to CR-α=.93, and the item difficulty indices of the subscales ranged from 18% to 89%. For 2 subscales, some items had a difficulty index of more than 80%, and for 3 subscales, the difficulty index of some items was less than 25%. Conclusions: The FKM_L was developed to assess individual and group profiles of teachers' competence in medicine. The results of this first psychometric analysis are promising: With the help of the FKM_L, teachers can learn about and reflect on aspects of their teaching competencies in the context of medical didactic courses. Based on their FKM_L profiles, they can decide whether they want to selectively optimize their competence characteristics. For providers, the FKM_L is suitable as a screening tool to identify, among other things, gaps in the training offered. Further analyses are necessary to check limitations identified in some scales and to improve individual items. In addition, research on the construct and criterion-related validity of the instrument is required.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducational PersonnelHumansLearningPsychometricsSurveys and Questionnairesdiagnostic of competenciesself-assessmentself-reflectionteaching competencies in medicine

Identifiers

PMID36540567
PMCPMC9733483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.