PubMed · 2925591
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
H H Work. 1989. Our changing field.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-198903000-00034
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to compare first-time performance on the oral examination for certification in child and adolescent psychiatry with first-time performance on the written and oral examinations for certification in general psychiatry and to identify factors that contribute to failure on the child and adolescent psychiatry oral examination. METHOD: To address the first question, two successive cohorts of first-time child and adolescent psychiatry candidates were identified, and chi-square analyses were used to explore the relationship between first-time performance on the different examinations. For the second question, a special checklist was developed and completed for all candidates who failed any section of the oral examination for child and adolescent psychiatry three successive times. RESULTS: There was no relationship between passing or failing the written and oral examinations for general psychiatry on the first attempt and passing or failing the child and adolescent psychiatry oral examination on the first attempt. The checklist results suggested that the failing candidates had difficulty in organizing and integrating case material. Other weaknesses were related to the specific sections of the oral examination. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the knowledge and skills that are required to pass the child and adolescent psychiatry oral examination are different from those of the general psychiatry examination. The information about weaknesses should be of interest to general and child and adolescent psychiatric educators, candidates, and service delivery agencies.
OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the findings from a questionnaire-based survey of psychiatrists designed to elucidate the positive and negative aspects of group peer review and its perceived place in accountability procedures, and to provide information about how accountability through group peer review might be improved. METHOD: Three hundred and eighty-eight psychiatrists were surveyed via mailout questionnaire. Demographic data, details of groups, and perceptions of beneficial and detrimental effects of group peer review were sought from group participants and non-participants. Attitudes of participants were compared with those of non-participants. Features of groups related to satisfaction in participants were examined. RESULTS: The majority of the 170 respondents participating in groups regarded peer review as a means of maintaining and improving skills, sharing ideas and methods, receiving constructive criticism and feedback, of educational benefit and an important source of professional accountability. Non-participants, while less positive overall, responded equally that participation in peer review groups would be an effective response to accountability procedures. Potential detrimental effects and problems with the functioning of peer review groups were elucidated. CONCLUSIONS: Group peer review contributes significantly to professional accountability and education in well-functioning groups. Further strategies for the facilitation of group functioning and for the processing of problems arising in group peer review need to be developed to optimise its contribution to the maintenance and improvement of professional standards.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.