Cargando…
Analysis of Six Reviews on the Quality of Instruments for the Evaluation of Interprofessional Education in German-Speaking Countries
Background: More and more institutions worldwide and in German-speaking countries are developing and establishing interprofessional seminars in undergraduate education of health professions. In order to evaluate the different didactic approaches and different outcomes regarding the anticipated inter...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5569985/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28890927 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma001113 |
Sumario: | Background: More and more institutions worldwide and in German-speaking countries are developing and establishing interprofessional seminars in undergraduate education of health professions. In order to evaluate the different didactic approaches and different outcomes regarding the anticipated interprofessional competencies, it is necessary to apply appropriate instruments. Cross-cultural instruments are particularly helpful for international comparability. The Interprofessional Education working group of the German Medical Association (GMA) aims at identifying existing instruments for the evaluation of interprofessional education in order to make recommendations for German-speaking countries. Methods: Systematic literature research was performed on the websites of international interprofessional organisations (CAIPE, EIPEN, AIPEN), as well as in the PubMed and Cinahl databases. Reviews focusing on quantitative instruments to evaluate competencies according to the modified Kirkpatrick competency levels were searched for. Psychometrics, language/country and setting, in which the instrument was applied, were recorded. Results: Six reviews out of 73 literature research hits were included. A large number of instruments were identified; however, their psychometrics and the applied setting were very heterogeneous. The instruments can mainly be assigned to Kirkpatrick levels 1, 2a & 2b. Most instruments have been developed in English but their psychometrics were not always reported rigorously. Only very few instruments are available in German. Conclusion: It is difficult to find appropriate instruments in German. Internationally, there are different approaches and objectives in the measurement and evaluation of interprofessional competencies. The question arises whether it makes sense to translate existing instruments or to go through the lengthy process of developing new ones. The evaluation of interprofessional seminars with quantitative instruments remains mainly on Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2. Levels 3 and 4 can probably only be assessed with qualitative or mixed methods. German language instruments are necessary. |
---|