Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10496395

Problem-based learning in ophthalmology: a pilot program for curricular renewal.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To gain experience with problem-based learning as a demonstration project in a medical school's curriculum renewal effort and determine if using a single facilitator to circulate among the small groups would yield positive results. DESIGN: We developed 16 cases around 4 ophthalmic problems that were used in 3-hour small-group sessions during the Introduction to Clinical Medicine semester of the second-year curriculum. A single faculty member facilitated the small groups of 4 students each that were created by self-division at each of 5 sessions. SETTING: A state-supported large Midwestern medical school. PARTICIPANTS: All students (N = 75) enrolled in the Introduction to Clinical Medicine course prior to their standard introductory ophthalmology lectures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A 5-item pretest, related to each of that day's clinical problems, was administered at the beginning and again at the end of the session as a posttest. A satisfaction questionnaire with Likert-type questions was also completed by the students at the close of the session. RESULTS: Knowledge scores showed statistically significant gains with a mean of 1.7 points. Student satisfaction was very positive--85% stated that they learned more than they would have in the traditional format and 93% agreed that they enjoyed the problem-based learning format. CONCLUSIONS: A single facilitator successfully managed small groups of students in a modified problem-based learning format that produced significant knowledge gains and high student satisfaction. This positive experience was one of the factors that led to adoption of problem-based learning into the curriculum.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T A Farrell, M A Albanese, P R Pomrehn. 1999. Problem-based learning in ophthalmology: a pilot program for curricular renewal.. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.117.9.1223

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗