TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of Engaging Trainees by Assessing Peer Performance

T2 - A Randomised Controlled Trial Using Simulated Patient Scenarios

AU - Loumann Krogh, Charlotte

AU - Ringsted, Charlotte

AU - Kromann, Charles B

AU - Rasmussen, Maria Birkvad

AU - Todsen, Tobias

AU - Jørgensen, Rasmus Lundhus

AU - Jacobsen, Rikke Borre

AU - Dahl, Jørgen B

AU - Konge, Lars

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to explore the learning effect of engaging trainees by assessing peer performance during simulation-based training.METHODS: Eighty-four final year medical students participated in the study. The intervention involved trainees assessing peer performance during training. Outcome measures were in-training performance and performance, both of which were measured two weeks after the course. Trainees' performances were videotaped and assessed by two expert raters using a checklist that included a global rating. Trainees' satisfaction with the training was also evaluated.RESULTS: The intervention group obtained a significantly higher overall in-training performance score than the control group: mean checklist score 20.87 (SD 2.51) versus 19.14 (SD 2.65) P = 0.003 and mean global rating 3.25 SD (0.99) versus 2.95 (SD 1.09) P = 0.014. Postcourse performance did not show any significant difference between the two groups. Trainees who assessed peer performance were more satisfied with the training than those who did not: mean 6.36 (SD 1.00) versus 5.74 (SD 1.33) P = 0.025.CONCLUSION: Engaging trainees in the assessment of peer performance had an immediate effect on in-training performance, but not on the learning outcome measured two weeks later. Trainees had a positive attitude towards the training format.

AB - INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to explore the learning effect of engaging trainees by assessing peer performance during simulation-based training.METHODS: Eighty-four final year medical students participated in the study. The intervention involved trainees assessing peer performance during training. Outcome measures were in-training performance and performance, both of which were measured two weeks after the course. Trainees' performances were videotaped and assessed by two expert raters using a checklist that included a global rating. Trainees' satisfaction with the training was also evaluated.RESULTS: The intervention group obtained a significantly higher overall in-training performance score than the control group: mean checklist score 20.87 (SD 2.51) versus 19.14 (SD 2.65) P = 0.003 and mean global rating 3.25 SD (0.99) versus 2.95 (SD 1.09) P = 0.014. Postcourse performance did not show any significant difference between the two groups. Trainees who assessed peer performance were more satisfied with the training than those who did not: mean 6.36 (SD 1.00) versus 5.74 (SD 1.33) P = 0.025.CONCLUSION: Engaging trainees in the assessment of peer performance had an immediate effect on in-training performance, but not on the learning outcome measured two weeks later. Trainees had a positive attitude towards the training format.

KW - Adult

KW - Clinical Competence

KW - Education, Medical, Graduate

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Problem-Based Learning

KW - Task Performance and Analysis

U2 - 10.1155/2014/610591

DO - 10.1155/2014/610591

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24967383

VL - 2014

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - BioMed Research International

JF - BioMed Research International

SN - 2314-6133

M1 - 610591

ER -