Thread by @MarcelDEon24

#MCGConf2021CP Key question in the title: describe methods/approaches, suggest common categories, and then classify elements of those methods. Provide recommendations for research and development to enhance and strengthen the scholarship in this field. @AUG_EII

#MCGConf2021CP Anchored in outcomes, competencies, and content framework of curriculum. Broad consensus for this in med ed. (Barrow et al (2010); Prideaux (2007)).

We thought we were going to do a systematic review. The initial exploration surprised us. There was nothing systematic about content rating. We had undertaken a scoping review. Another review in this field had been conducted prior. #MCGConf2021CP @AUG_EII

#MCGConf2021CP Selecting content complex: personal, institutional, policy, economic implications. Filter failure allows too much info in system. Microscope implies careful study of content. By judges rating content, mostly, or by other means such as environmental scans.

#MCGConf2021CP Inclusion: medical professionals (students, residents, physicians); description of the methods; results provided.
Exclusion: commentaries, opinion, theoretical perspectives.

#MCGConf2021CP Most rationales for data collection were short and shallow. Empirical evidence lacking.

#MCGConf2021CP Many small, niche areas. Two main methods to collect ratings. Too many inconsistent and poorly defined criteria. @AUG_EII

#MCGConf2021CP @AUG_EII

#MCGConf2021CP @AUG_EII Little or no differences in most comparisons. Differences may be result of poorly understood or selected criteria. Our unpublished data show high correlations between senior students and physicians.

#MCGConf2021CP @AUG_EII Much more work needed to gather validity evidence for elements of data collection methods commonly used in med ed. The literature in education generally is not specific enough with little empirical data to be helpful.

#MCGConf2021CP @AUG_EII