ᰍƱᮂᮝಽᕽእॵ᪅ෝᯕᬊ⦽⦝ऽ႒ᯕᯥᔢᙹ⧪⠪a
ᖒᱢᨱၙ⊹۵ᩢ⨆
ʡ᳦⬩
ᯙ⦹ݡ⦺Ʊ᮹⦺ᱥྙݡ⦺ᬱ᮹⦺Ʊᮂᝅ
ȱěȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ
¡ȱ
Jong Hoon Kim
Medical Education Center, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
ᕽ ು
2009֥ᨱ ᮭ ⧪ࡽ ᮹ᔍǎaǎǎ aa ⨹᮹ ᝅʑ⠪a(ǎ((ǎǎ ᝅʑ⨹)a ۵ b ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ a ᯱℕᯱᯱ ᱢᮝಽ ⧪⦹Ñ⦹⦹ ӹ ḡᩎ ⍉ᗭᨥᯕ ᵝš⦹šš ۵ ᝅ ʑ⠪a(ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a)aa ᨱࠥ ᩢ⨆ᮥ ၙ⊹Ł ᯩ݅.݅݅ ࢱ ⠪a ༉ࢱ༉༉ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽
⪵ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ӹ ༉⩶༉༉ (simulataa or)rᮥ ᯕᬊ⦹ᩍ ᩍ్ ⨹ႊ(multi-stataa ion) ᨱᕽ ⧪ࡽ݅۵ ໕ᨱᕽ ə ԕᬊᯕӹ Ǎ᳑a ᮁᔍᮁᮁ ⦽ᔍᔍ ໕ᯕ ฯᯕ ᯩ
݅.
݅
݅ ᮹ᔍǎaǎǎ aa ⨹ᨱ ᝅʑ⠪aaaa ᯦ࠥࡹʑ ᱥʭḡʭʭ ۵ ᩍ్ ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ᨱƱƱ ᕽ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aෝ ᯕᬊ⦹ᩍ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᯥᔢ܆ᔢᔢ ಆᮥ ⊂ᱶ⦽ đŝ۵ ݡ}
b ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᨱí əݡəə ಽ ᱥݍࡹÑӹ ݉ḡ݉݉ ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᯥᔢᝅᔢᔢ ᮥ ᱱá⦹۵ ߑ ᯕᬊࡹŁ ᯩᨩ݅.݅݅ ə్ӹ ǎaǎǎ ᝅʑ⨹ᯕ ᯦ࠥࠥࠥ ࡽ ⬥ᨱ۵ ᯕᨱ
⦹ᩍ b ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ ǎaǎǎ ᝅʑ⨹ᮥ ᮲᮲᮲ ⧁ ᵡእa ࡹᨩ۵ᨩᨩ ḡ ᱱá⦹۵
༊ᱢᮝಽࠥ ᯕᬊࡹŁ ᯩᮝᯩᯩ ໑ᮝᮝ ✚⯩ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aᨱᕽ ऽ్ӽ b ⦺ ᔾ᮹ ྙᱽྙྙ ᱱᮥ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ }ᯙᨱí ᅕ݅ᅕᅕ ᔢᖙᔢᔢ ⯩ ᱥݍ⦹Ł⦹⦹ }ᖁ⧁ ᙹ ᯩ ۵ ႊჶᮥ ᱽŖ⦹۵ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮹ ⧪ᮥ ᬒ ᵲᵲᵲ ⦹ í⦹⦹ Łಅ⧁ ⦥a
ᯩ݅Ł݅݅ ᅙ݅.݅݅ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a đŝaŝŝ ᇡḥ⦹ᩍ ǎaǎǎ ᝅʑ⨹ᨱ ᝅ➉
⧁ ᭥⨹ᯕ ᯩ݅Ł݅݅ ❱݉❱❱ ࡹ۵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᨱí۵ ᯕ్⦽ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᯕ ✚⯩ ᵲᵲᵲ
⧁ äᯕ݅(Hauer et al., 2006).
Purpose: Precepted video review (PVR) has been considered one of the methods for the remediation of clinical performance examinations (CPX). This study quantified the effect of brief PVR on CPX scores.
Methods: For two years, final-year students (61 students in the 1st year’s cohort and 54 in the 2nd year’s co- hort) participated in CPXs. The scores on the initial CPX were announced to the students shortly after that CPX administration. There was no PVR after the initial CPX in the 1st year. All participants of the 2nd year were noti- fied of the opportunity to voluntarily receive brief PVR after the initial CPX. Several months after the initial CPX, the students took the latter CPX in both years. The differences of scores between initial and latter CPX were compared in good performers and poor performers of the initial CPX.
Results: Thirteen poor performers and 8 good performers received PVR in the 2nd year. In the 1st year, history taking (Hx), physical examination, and patient physician interaction (PPI) scores of the good performers of the initial CPX were significantly decreased on the latter CPX. In the 2nd year, the Hx and PPI scores of the good per- formers of the initial CPX, who received PVR, were significantly decreased at the latter CPX. The Hx and PPI scores of the poor performers of the initial CPX were significantly increased at the latter CPX in both years regardless of PVR.
Conclusion: The changes in CPX scores according to PVR did not show any consistent trend. Brief PVR appears to be not sufficient for improving CPX scores.
Keywords: Clinical competence, Educational measurement, Feedback
Ʊᝁᱡᯱ ʡ᳦⬩
ᯙŲᩎ ᵲǍᵲᵲ ᕽ⧕ݡಽ 366 (ᱶᕾክঊ 2⊖)⊖⊖ ᯙ⦹ݡ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ᮹⦺ᱥྙݡ⦺ᬱ ᮹⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ᮂᝅ Te
T
T l: +82-32-890-0918 Faxaa : +82-32-888-7224 E-mail: [email protected] ᱲᙹᯝᯱ2012֥ 3ᬵ 12ᯝ ᙹᱶᯝᯱ2012֥ 4ᬵ 17ᯝ íᰍ⪶ᱶᯝᯱ2012֥ 4ᬵ 20ᯝ
݉ḡ
݉
݉ ǎaǎǎ aa ⨹ᨱ ݡእ⦹ʑ⦹⦹ ᭥⧕ᕽʑ ᅕ݅ᅕᅕ ۵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪܆
ಆᮥ ⠪a⦽aa ⬥ᨱ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ⦹ʑ⦹⦹ ᭥⦹ᩍ ᩍ్ aḡaa ႊჶᯕ ᱽ ᦩࡹ
ᦩ
ᦩ ᨩ݅(Beckekk rt et al., 2003; Bennett et al., 2005; Faustinella et al., 2004; Lin et al., 2001; Magarian & Campbell, 1992; RoRR senbn lataa t &
Schartel, 1999).ᯕ᪡ zᯕ ᩍ్ ႊჶᯕ ᗭ}ࡹᨩḡอ ᦥḢʭḡʭʭ ᰍ Ʊᮂ
Ʊ
Ʊ ᮥ ᭥⦽ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ႊჶᯕ ྕᨨᯙḡᨱ ݡ⦹ᩍ ⧊᮹ࡽ ၵ۵ ᨧ݅.݅݅ ᯕ ۵ b ʑšษšš ݅ aᬊ ᯱᬱŝ ᯙಆ᮹ ⦽ĥ⦽⦽ a ݅݅݅ ʑ ভྙᨱ ᯕᨱ ⧊ ݚ⦽
ݚ
ݚ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ႊჶᨱ ₉ᯕa ᯩᮥᯩ ᙹ ၷᨱ ᨧʑ ভྙᯝ äᮝಽ ᔾb
⦽݅
⦽
⦽ .݅݅ ၙǎᨱᕽ۵ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪ ḡࠥƱᙹƱƱ ᪡ᙹᙹ ⧉̹⧉⧉ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a ࠺ᩢᔢ
ᮥ ⧉̹⧉⧉ ᰍá☁(precepted video review,ww PVR)R⦹໑ ḡࠥෝࠥࠥ ၼ۵ၼၼ ä ᯕ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮹ ႊჶᮝಽ aᰆaa ฯᯕ ᔍᬊࡹŁ ᯩ݅۵ ᳑ᔍ đŝaŝŝ ၽ
⢽ࡹᨩ݅(Saxena et al., 2009). ᅙ ᩑǍᯱǍǍ ۵ ᯕၙ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aᨱᕽ ᖒᱢᯕ ᇡḥ⦽ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ PVRᮥRR ⧪⦽ đŝ ᙹ}ᙹᙹ ᬵ ⬥ᨱ
݅
݅
݅ ⧪ࡽ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aᨱᕽ ə ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ ᖒᱢᯕ PVRᮥRR ၼḡၼၼ ᦫ
ᮡ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅᨱ እ⦹ᩍ ᯝᇡ ᮁ᮹ၙ⦹í⦹⦹ ᔢᔢᔢ ⦹ᩡᮭᮥ ᅕŁ⦹ŁŁ ᩡ݅
(Kim, 2010).ə్ӹ ə ᩑǍᨱᕽ۵ ᖒᱢᯕ ᇡḥ⦽ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ PVRᮥRR ၼḡ
ၼ
ၼ ᦫᦹᮥᦹᦹ Ğᬑᨱ ᖒᱢ᮹ ᄡ⪵ෝ እƱ⧁ƱƱ ᙹ ᯩ۵ᯩᯩ ݡ᳑Ǒᯕ ᨧᨩ
šĥšš ಽ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a ᖒᱢ᮹ ᔢᔢᔢ ᯕ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅᯕ ၼᮡၼၼ PVRᨱRR ʑ ᯙ⦽݅⦽⦽ Ł݅݅ đು ԕญʑᨱ۵ ྕญa ᯩ۵ᯩᯩ ä z݅.݅݅
ᯕᨱ ᅙ ᩑǍᨱᕽ۵ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aෝ ⧪⦽ ⬥ᨱ ᯕ ⠪a đŝ
ෝ ☁ݡ☁☁ ಽ PVRᮥRR ၼᮡၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ŝ ၼḡၼၼ ᦫᮡᦫᦫ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᄲಆℎ≉, ᝁℕḥ ₑ,
ₑ
ₑ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ᮹ᯱᯱ ᔍšĥšš ᖒᱢᯕ ᙹ}ᙹᙹ ᬵ ⬥ᨱ ݅݅݅ ⧪ࡹ۵ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a ᨱᕽ ᨕਅ ᄡ⪵ෝ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ۵ḡෝ ᳑ᔍ⦹ᔍᔍ ᩡ݅.݅݅ ᷪ,ᷪᷪ zᮡzz ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ᨱƱƱ ᕽ 2009
֥ᨱ 4⦺֥ᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ እ⦽ ʑᨱ Ñ᮹ zᮡzz eĊee ᮝಽ PVRᮥRR
⦹ḡ
⦹
⦹ ᦫŁᦫᦫ ⧪⦽ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aᨱᕽ ᖒᱢ᮹ ᄡ⪵᪡⪵⪵ እƱ⦹ƱƱ ᩍ 2010
֥ 4⦺֥ ᖒᱢ᮹ ᄡ⪵ᨱ PVRᯕ ᮹ၙ ᯩ۵ᯩᯩ ᩢ⨆ᮥ ၙ⊹۵ḡ ᳑ᔍ⦹ᔍᔍ Łᯱ ⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅
ݡᔢၰႊჶ
ᅙ ᩑǍෝ ⧪⦽ ᯙ⦹ݡ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ᮹⦺ᱥ⦺⦺ ྙݡ⦺ᬱ(ᯙ⦹᮹⦹⦹ ᱥᬱ)ᨱᕽ ۵ ᅙŝ 4⦺֥ᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ 1֥ᨱ 3₉ಡᨱ Ùℱ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aෝ ᝅ
⦹Ł⦹⦹ ᯩ݅.݅݅ ݡ} 1₉ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a۵ 1ᬵ ᵲᙽᨱ, 2₉۵ 6ᬵ Ⅹᙽ ᨱ, 3₉۵ 8ᬵ Ⅹᙽᨱ ⧪⦹Ł⦹⦹ ᯩ݅.݅݅ ᯕ ᵲᨱᕽ 1₉᪡₉₉ 3₉ ⠪a۵ ᕽᬙ/ᬙᬙ Ğʑ ⍉ᗭᨥᮥ ☖⦹ᩍ ᵡእࡹŁ ᯩᮝᯩᯩ ໑ᮝᮝ ⍉ᗭᨥᨱ a᯦⦽
⦺Ʊ
⦺
⦺ ᨱᕽ ӹญ᪅᪡ ₥ᱱ⢽ෝ⢽⢽ ᱽ⇽ၼᦥ ə ⧕ᨱ ᔍᬊ⦽ᬊᬊ ᔍಡෝ
⪶ᱶ
⪶
⪶ ⦹Ł⦹⦹ ᙹᱶ⦽ ⬥ᨱ ᔍಡݚ 4-5᮹ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ⪵ᵡᵡ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ෝ ༉Ḳ⦹ᩍ ⪹
ᯱ ᩑʑ᪡ ₥ᱱ⢽ ᯲ᖒ᯲᯲ ᯕ ᱶ⧕ḥ ᙹᵡ ᯕᔢᯕ ࡹࠥಾࠥࠥ ⬩ಉ┉ ݅
ᮭ b ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ෝƱƱ ᙽ⫭⦹໑ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aෝ ⧪⦽݅⦽⦽ .݅݅ ᯱᖙᯱᯱ ⦽ ᵡእ ᱩ
₉᪡
₉
₉ ႊჶᮡ ₙŁₙₙ ྙŁŁ ⨭ᨱ ᯱᖙᯱᯱ ⯩ ʑᚁࡹᨕ ᯩ݅(Kim, 2010). 2₉ ⠪ a۵ ᯙ⦹᮹⦹⦹ ᱥᬱᨱᕽ ᯱℕᯱᯱ ᱢᮝಽ ༉ु༉༉ ᔍ⧎ᔍᔍ ᮥ⧎ ᵡእ⦹ᩍ ⧪⦹Ł⦹⦹
ᯩᮝ
ᯩ
ᯩ ໑ᮝᮝ ə ᱩ₉۵ ⍉ᗭᨥᨱᕽ ⧪⦹۵ ᱩ₉᪡₉₉ Ñ᮹ ࠺ᯝ⦹݅⦹⦹ .݅݅
⢽ᵡ
⢽
⢽ ⪵ᵡᵡ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ⬩ಉᮥ ᭥⦽ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ӹญ᪅᪡ ⠪aෝ ᭥⦽ ₥ᱱ⢽
᮹ ⩶ᮡ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aᨱ ᔍᬊࡹ۵ ᔍಡ᮹ ᖒĊᨱ ᧞e᮹ ᄡ⪵۵ ᯩḡอ ɝᅙᱢᮝಽ ࠺ᯝ⦹݅⦹⦹ .݅݅ ᩩෝ ॅᨕ ˄ӹᒽӹӹ ᗭ ᱥ⦹ʑ⦹⦹ ˅ zᮡ
z
z ᔍಡᨱᕽ۵ ᝁℕḥₑᮥₑₑ ⠪a⦹aa ʑ⦹⦹ ᭥⦽ ₥ᱱ⢽a ᨧ݅.݅݅ ₥ᱱ⢽
۵ ᄲಆℎ≉, ᝁℕḥₑ,ₑₑ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ Ʊᯱᯱ ᮂƱƱ ,ᮂᮂ ᯥᔢᩩᱩ, ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ᮹ᯱᯱ ᔍšĥšš ॒ 5aḡaa
ᩢᩎᮝಽ ӹ٥ᨕᲙ ᯩ݅(TaTT ba le 1).ᄲಆℎ≉, ᝁℕḥₑ,ₑₑ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ Ʊᯱᯱ ᮂƱƱ ᨱ ݡ⦽ ₥ᱱ⢽۵⢽⢽ b ᔍಡ᮹ ✚ᖒᨱ ə ԕᬊŝᬊᬊ ⧎༊⧎⧎ ᙹaᙹᙹ ݅݅݅ ໑ ݡ} 20} ԕಽ Ǎᖒࡹᨕ ᯩ݅.݅݅ ᯥᔢᩩᱩ ₥ᱱ⢽۵⢽⢽ ᝁℕḥₑᮥₑₑ
⧪⧁ ভ ᮹ᔍaᔍᔍ ḡ⍽ ⦹۵ ᩩᱩᮥ ⠪a⦹aa ۵ ԕᬊᮝᬊᬊ ಽ ᝁℕḥ ₑᯕ ⦥⦽ ᔍಡᨱ Ŗ☖ᱢᮝಽ ᔍᬊࡹ۵ 4} ⧎༊⧎⧎ ᮝ༊༊ ಽ Ǎᖒࡹᨕ
ᯩᮝ
ᯩ
ᯩ ໑ᮝᮝ ₥ᱱ⢽ᨱ ᝁℕḥₑᯕ ᯩ۵ᯩᯩ Ğᬑᨱอ ⡍⧉⡍⡍ ࡽ⧉⧉ ݅.݅݅ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ᮹ᯱᯱ ᔍš ĥ ₥ᱱ⢽۵⢽⢽ ༉ु༉༉ ᔍಡᨱ Ŗ☖ᱢᮝಽ ᔍᬊࡹ۵ 7} ⧎༊⧎⧎ ᮝ༊༊ ಽ Ǎᖒ
ࡹᨕ ᯩ݅.݅݅ ₥ᱱ⢽۵⢽⢽ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ⪵ᵡᵡ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ aᯱᯱ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ḥഭෝഭഭ ၼŁၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ ႊ
ᮥ ӹeӹӹ ⬥ᨱ 5ᇥ ԕᨱ ᯲ᖒ᯲᯲ ⦹í⦹⦹ ࡽ݅.݅݅
1₉ ᩑࠥ(2009֥)ᨱ۵ 61᮹ 4⦺֥ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aෝ ၼ ᦹ݅.݅݅ ⍉ᗭᨥᨱᕽ ᵡእ⦽ 6}᮹ ᔍಡಽ ᯕᨕḥ 1₉ ⠪a ⬥ᨱ
⦺ᔾ
⦺
⦺ ॅᨱí }ᄥᱢᮝಽ ᔍᬊࡽ b ᔍಡᄥಽ, əญŁ 5aḡaa ᩢᩎᄥ ಽ ᖒᱢอᮥออ ☖Ł☖☖ ⦹ŁŁ ᩡᮝᩡᩡ ໑ᮝᮝ PVRᮡRR ⧪⦹ḡ⦹⦹ ᦫᦹ݅.݅݅ 1₉ ⠪a 4}
ᬵ ⬥ᨱ ᅙƱᅙᅙ ᨱƱƱ ᕽ ᯱℕᯱᯱ ᱢᮝಽ ᵡእ⦽ 6}᮹ ᔍಡಽ ᯕᨕḥ 2₉
⠪aෝ ⧪⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅ 1₉ ⠪a᪡aa 2₉ ⠪aᨱ۵ ༉ࢱ༉༉ ݅ෙ݅݅ ᔍಡॅᯕ ᔍᬊࡹᨩ݅.݅݅
2₉ ᩑࠥ(2010֥)ᨱ۵ 52᮹ 4⦺֥ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪aෝ ၼ ᦹ݅.݅݅ ⍉ᗭᨥᨱᕽ ᵡእ⦽ 6}᮹ ᔍಡಽ ᯕᨕḥ 1₉ ⠪aaaa ᳦ഭ᳦᳦
ࡽ Ḣ⬥ᨱ 1₉ ᩑࠥ᪡ ษ₍ษษ a₍₍ ḡaa ಽ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅᨱí }ᄥᱢᮝಽ ᔍᬊࡽ
b ᔍಡᄥಽ, əญŁ 5aḡaa ᩢᩎᄥಽ ᖒᱢᮥ ☖Ł☖☖ ⦹ŁŁ ᩡ݅.݅݅ PVRᮥRR ၼ ʑ ᬱ⦹۵ ༉ु༉༉ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅᮡ ᖒᱢᨱ šĥšš ᨧᯕ ᧞ 4ᵝ᮹ ʑeᨱ Ùℱ } ᯙᄥಽ ⦽ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ݚ 1e 30ᇥᨱᕽ 2e ᱶࠥ᮹ PVRᮥRR ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪
⠪a ݕݚ ƱᙹƱƱ ಽᙹᙹ ᇡಽಽ ░ ၼᦹ݅.݅݅ PVRᮡRR ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a᮹aa ༉ु༉༉ ⠪a
ᩢᩎᨱ Ùℱ ⧪⧩ᮝ⧩⧩ ໑ᮝᮝ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ }ᯙᄥಽ ᙹ⧪ᯕ ၙ⯂⦽⯂⯂ ᩢᩎᨱ ฯ
ᮡ eᮥ ⧁ᧁ⦹ᩍ ḥ⧪⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅ 1₉ ⠪a 4}ᬵ ⬥ᨱ ᅙƱᅙᅙ ᨱƱƱ ᕽ ᯱ ℕᱢᮝಽ ᵡእ⦽ 6}᮹ ᔍಡಽ ᯕᨕḥ 2₉ ⠪aෝ ⧪⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅ 1
₉ ⠪a᪡aa 2₉ ⠪aᨱ۵ ༉ࢱ༉༉ ݅ෙ݅݅ ᔍಡॅᯕ ᔍᬊࡹᨩ݅.݅݅
1₉ ᩑࠥᨱ۵ 1₉ ⠪a đŝ }ᯙᄥ ⠪Ɂ ᖒᱢᯕ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ 27%ᯕԕ ᨱ ⧕ݚ⦹۵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ŝ ⦹᭥ 27%ᨱ ᗮ⦹۵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ ᖒᱢᯕ 2₉ ⠪a ᨱᕽ ᨕਁ⦽ ᄡ⪵ෝ ᅕᩡ۵ᩡᩡ ḡ ᩢᩎᄥಽ ᳑ᔍ⦹ᔍᔍ ᩡᮝᩡᩡ ໑ᮝᮝ 2₉ ᩑࠥᨱ ۵ PVRᮥRR ၼᮡၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ŝ ၼḡၼၼ ᦫᮡᦫᦫ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ Ǎᇥ⦹ᩍ 1₉ ⠪a đŝ }ᯙᄥ ⠪Ɂ ᖒᱢᯕ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ 27% ᯕԕᨱ ⧕ݚ⦹۵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ŝ ⦹᭥ 27%ᨱ Table 1. Checklists and rating scales
Domain Scale
History taking Done (1), not done (0)
Physical examination Done well (1), not done well (0.5), or not done (0) Information sharing Done (1), not done (0)
Clinical courtesy Done (1), not done, or not applicable (0) Patient-physician interaction 6-Point scale (0-5)
ᗮ⦹۵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ ᖒᱢᯕ 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᨕਁ⦽ ᄡ⪵ෝ ᅕᩡ۵ᩡᩡ ḡ ᩢ ᩎᄥಽ ᳑ᔍ⦹ᔍᔍ ᩡ݅(TaTT vaa akokk l & Dennick, 2011).ᩢᩎᄥ ᱱᙹ۵ ႒ᇥ
᭥ ᱱᙹಽᙹᙹ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ TaTT ba le 1᮹ ᱱᙹ ႑ᱶᨱ ᮹⦹ᩍ b ᩢᩎᨱᕽ ाᱱ
⦽ ᱱᙹෝ ə ᩢᩎ᮹ อᱱออ ᮝಽ ӹ٥Ł٥٥ 100ᮥ Œ⦹ᩍ ᔑᱶᔑᔑ ⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅ 2
₉ ᩑࠥᨱ PVRᮥRR ၼᮡၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ PVR᮹ ԕᬊŝᬊᬊ อ᳒ออ ࠥ᳒᳒ ᨱ ݡ⦽ ᖅྙᮥ ⧪⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅
1₉ ᩑࠥᨱ۵ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ᖒᱢ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ǑŝǑǑ ⦹᭥ᖒᱢ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ Ǒ᮹ǑǑ , 2₉ ᩑࠥᨱ ۵ PVRᮥRR ၼÑӹ ၼḡၼၼ ᦫᮡᦫᦫ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ᖒᱢ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ǑŝǑǑ ⦹᭥ᖒᱢ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ Ǒ᮹ǑǑ ᖒᱢᮥ እƱ⦹ƱƱ ᩡ݅.݅݅ ᖒᱢ እƱ۵ƱƱ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ ᩢᩎᄥ ᱱᙹෝ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ zᱱ ᙹಽ
ᙹ
ᙹ ᄡ⪹⦹⪹⪹ ᩍ b Ǒ᮹ǑǑ 1₉ ⠪a᪡aa 2₉ ⠪a ᔍᯕ᮹ ᄲಆℎ≉, ᝁℕ ḥₑ,ₑₑ ᯥᔢᩩᱩ, ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ᮹ᯱᯱ ᔍšᔍᔍ ĥšš ᱱᙹ᮹ ₉ᯕෝ Wilcoxoo oxx n signed rank testෝtt ᯕᬊ⦹ᩍ á᷾⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅
đ ŝ
1₉ ᩑࠥ᮹ 1₉ ⠪a ᔢ⦹᭥ 27%ᨱ ⧕ݚ⦹۵ b 17 ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ Ǒ᮹ǑǑ ᖒᱢŝ ə ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ 2₉ ⠪a ᖒᱢᮥ እƱ⦽ƱƱ đŝ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ᖒᱢ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ Ǒ ᨱᕽ۵ ᄲಆℎ≉᪡ ᝁℕḥₑ,ₑₑ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ᮹ᯱᯱ ᔍšᔍ ĥšš ᮹ 2₉ ⠪a ᖒᱢᯕ 1₉
⠪aᨱ እ⧕ ☖ĥ☖☖ ᱢᮝಽ ᮁ᮹⦹í⦹⦹ ਉᨕᲭᮝᲭᲭ ໑ᮝᮝ , ᯥᔢᩩᱩ ᖒᱢᮡ ᮁ ᮹⦽ ᄡ⪵ෝ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ḡ ᦫᦹ݅.݅݅ ၹ໕ᨱ ⦹᭥ᖒᱢ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ Ǒᨱᕽ۵ ᄲಆℎ
≉᪡ ᝁℕḥₑ,ₑₑ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ᮹ᯱᯱ ᔍšĥšš ᮹ 2₉ ⠪a ᖒᱢᯕ 1₉ ⠪aᨱ እ⧕
☖ĥ
☖
☖ ᱢᮝಽ ᮁ᮹⦹í⦹⦹ u ᮝuu ໑ᮝᮝ , ᯥᔢᩩᱩ ᖒᱢᮡ ᮁ᮹⦽ ᄡ⪵ෝ
ᅕᯕ ᅕ
ᅕ ḡ ᦫᦹ݅(TaTT ba le 2).
2₉ ᩑࠥᨱ۵ 1₉ ⠪a ⦹᭥ 27%ᨱ ⧕ݚ⦹۵ 14᮹ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ ᵲ ᨱᕽ 13ᯕ, ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ 14 ᵲᨱᕽ۵ 8᮹ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ PVRᮥRR ၼᦹᮝᦹᦹ ໑ᮝᮝ , 6
᮹ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮡ PVRᮥRR ၼḡၼၼ ᦫᦹ݅.݅݅ ⦹᭥ 27%ᨱ ᗮ⦹ḡ⦹⦹ อ PVRᮥRR ၼ ḡ ᦫᮡᦫᦫ 1᮹ ᖒᱢᮡ đŝᨱᕽ ᱽ⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅ ᯕ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ 1₉ ⠪a ᖒᱢŝ 2₉ ⠪a ᖒᱢᮥ እƱ⦽ƱƱ đŝ ᖒᱢ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ Ǒᨱᕽ PVRᮥRR ၼᮡ
ၼ
ၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᝁℕḥₑ,ₑₑ ᯥᔢᩩᱩ ᖒᱢᮡ 1, 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᮁ᮹⦽ ₉ ᯕෝ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ḡ ᦫᦹᮝᦹᦹ ӹᮝᮝ ᄲಆℎ≉᪡ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ᮹ᯱᯱ ᔍšĥšš ᖒᱢᮡ ☖ĥ☖☖ ᱢᮝ ಽ ᮁ᮹⦹í⦹⦹ ਉᨕḥ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ┡┡ ݅.݅݅ ᖒᱢ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ Ǒᨱᕽ PVR
ᮥ ၼḡၼၼ ᦫᮡᦫᦫ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ ᖒᱢᮡ 1, 2₉ ⠪a ᔍᯕᨱ ᮁ᮹⦽ ₉ᯕa ᨧ ᨩ݅.݅݅ ၹ໕ᨱ PVRᮥRR ၼᮡၼၼ ᖒᱢ ⦹᭥ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ Ǒᨱᕽ۵ ᄲಆℎ≉᪡ ⪹
ᯱ᮹
ᯱ
ᯱ ᔍšĥšš ᖒᱢᯕ 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᮁ᮹⦽ ᔢᔢᔢ ᮥ ᅕᩡ݅(TaTT ba le 3).
2₉ ᩑࠥᨱᕽ PVRᮥRR ၼᮡၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ PVRᨱRR ݡ⦽ ᖅྙᮥ
⧪⦽ đŝ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅᮡ PVRᯕ ᵡእࡹᨩᮝᨩᨩ ໑ᮝᮝ ࠥᬡࠥࠥ ᯕ ࡹᨩ݅Ł݅݅ ᮲ ݖ⦹ᩡ݅(TaTT ba le 4).
Ł ₑ
ᅙ ᩑǍ đŝ PVRᮡRR ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a᮹aa ᖒᱢᨱ ૽ಘ⦽ ᩢ⨆ᮥ ၙ
⊹ḡ۵ ᦫ۵ᦫᦫ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ┡┡ ݅.݅݅ ᅙ ᩑǍ ݡᔢ ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ᮹ PVRᮡRR ᮹ᔍǎ a
a
a ⨹ᨱ ᝅʑ⨹ᯕ ᯦ࠥࠥࠥ ࢉᨱ ǎaǎǎ aa ⨹ᮥ ᦿࢵᦿᦿ 4⦺֥ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a đŝ ӹ┡ӽ bᯱbb ᮹ᯱᯱ ᯥᔢ܆ᔢᔢ ಆ᮹ ᰆᱱᰆᰆ ᯕӹ ݉ᱱ݉݉ ᮥ ᯙ Table 2.The scores of the students in the 4 domains of the CPXs in the 1st year
Student group CPX Scores (average±SD)* (average of standard z scores)
History taking Physical examination Clinical courtesy Patient-physician interaction
Upper 27% of 1st CPX 1st CPX 60.8±4.5 (0.96) 50.4±7.2 (0.94) 69.5±11.5 (0.60) 67.4±3.7 (0.65)
2nd CPX 54.4±5.2† (0.18) 42.2±11.8† (0.08) 70.2±12.8 (0.30) 55.0±4.4† (0.16)
Lower 27% of 1st CPX 1st CPX 46.1±5.9 (-0.97) 32.7±8.9 (-0.72) 58.1±9.3 (-0.45) 55.7±4.5 (-1.16)
2nd CPX 52.3±6.4‡ (-0.18) 41.4±15.9‡ (0.02) 63.6±16.6 (-0.11) 52.7±4.5‡ (-0.36) CPX, clinical performance examination.
*The µscores of CPX¶ are percentage scores out of full marks and in the ( ) are standard z scores calculated by the formula (z score=[individual score-average score]/SD);†Signif- icantly lower (p < 0.05) than 1st CPX of the same student group at 2nd CPX;‡Significantly higher (p < 0.05) than 1st CPX of the same student group at 2nd CPX.
Table 3.The scores of the students at 4 domains of CPXs in 2nd year
Student group CPX Scores (average±SD)* (average of standard z scores)
History taking Physical examination Clinical courtesy Patient-physician interaction Upper 27% of 1st CPX (PVR group) 1st CPX 56.9±4.0 (0.91) 41.7±9.2 (0.91) 71.9±9.5 (0.71) 67.6±4.2 (1.12)
2nd CPX 52.7±6.0† (-0.19) 44.4±6.8 (0.71) 57.5±12.0 (0.20) 51.6±2.5† (-0.23) Upper 27% of 1st CPX (non-PVR group) 1st CPX 56.0±4.7 (0.78) 39.6±1.8 (0.69) 67.7±14.5 (0.37) 65.5±2.8 (0.79)
2nd CPX 57.6±8.5 (0.46) 41.3±9.1 (0.41) 59.2±8.6 (0.34) 54.8±4.7 (0.66)
Lower 27% of 1st CPX (PVR group) 1st CPX 41.5±6.4 (-1.18) 23.9±9.1 (-0.90) 51.9±10.0 (-0.94) 55.3±6.7 (-0.88) 2nd CPX 51.6±6.6‡ (-0.34) 32.5±12.7 (-0.43) 51.5±10.9 (-0.30) 52.7±3.2‡ (0.06) CPX, clinical performance examination; PVR, precepted video review.
*The µscores of CPX¶ are percentage scores out of full marks and in the ( ) are standard z scores calculated by the formula (z score=[individual score-average score]/SD);†Signif- icantly lower (p < 0.05) than 1st CPX of the same student group at 2nd CPX;‡Significantly higher (p < 0.05) than 1st CPX of the same student group at 2nd CPX.
ḡ⦹í⦹⦹ ⦹Ł⦹⦹ ə ܆ಆᮥ ⨆ᔢᔢᔢ ┅ʑ ᭥⦽ ႊჶᮥ ᱽ⦹۵ ⦝ऽ႒ऽऽ ᮥ ᵥ ༊ᱢᮝಽ ᅙ ᩑǍ᮹ 1₉ ᩑࠥᇡࠥࠥ ░ ĥ⫮ࡹᨩ݅.݅݅ ⦹ḡ⦹⦹ อ ᅙ ᩑǍ᮹ 1₉ ᩑࠥ᮹ 2₉ ⠪a ᱥʭḡʭʭ ۵ PVRᮥRR ⧪⧁ ᙹ ᯩ۵ᯩᯩ ᖅᯕ ᖅ⊹
ࡹḡ ༜⧕ 1₉ ᩑࠥ᮹ 1₉ ⠪a ⬥ᨱ۵ PVRᮥRR ⧪⧁ ᙹ ᨧᨩᮝᨩᨩ ໑ᮝᮝ PVRᯕ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᯥᔢ܆ᔢᔢ ಆ ⨆ᔢᨱ ᨕਜí ࠥᬡࠥࠥ ᯕ ࢁḡ ᙹ ᨧ۵ ᔢ
⫊ᯕᨩ݅.݅݅ ə௹ᕽ ᯝ݉ᮡ݉݉ ᖅᯕ w⇵ww ᨕḥ ⬥ᯙ 1₉ ᩑࠥ᮹ 2₉ ⠪ aᨱᕽ ᖒᱢᯕ ᇩప⦹ᩍ ၹऽၹၹ ʑ᳕᮹ Ʊŝŝŝŝ ᱶ ᨱ ᨕਜíु
✚ᄥ⦽ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᯕ ⦥⦹ ݅⦹⦹ Ł݅݅ ᩍĉḡ۵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ PVRᮥRR
⧪⦹í⦹⦹ ࡹᨩ݅.݅݅ ə đŝ PVRᮥRR ၼᮡၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅᯕ PVRᨱR ݡ⦹ᩍ ⪙᮹ ᱢᯙ ၹ᮲ၹၹ ᮥ ᅕᩍᅕᅕ ə ⬥ಽ⬥⬥ ۵ಽಽ ༉ु༉༉ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪ᙹᙹ ⠪aෝ ษ⊽ษษ ⬥ᨱ۵ PVR
ᮥ ᬱ⦹۵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᱥᬱᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ PVRᮥRR ⧪⦹ᩡŁᩡᩡ ə đŝ 2₉ ᩑࠥᨱ۵ 1₉ ⠪aᇡ░ ၵಽၵၵ PVRᮥRR ⧪⧁ ᙹ ᯩᨩ݅.݅݅
⦺ᔾ
⦺
⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪܆ಆᮥ ⠪a⦹aa Ł⦹⦹ ə đŝᨱ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ ݅݅݅ Ʊᮂ
Ʊ
Ʊ ⦹۵ ႊჶᮝಽ۵ಽಽ PVR ᨱࠥ ᩍ్ aḡaa a ᗭ}ࡹᨩ݅.݅݅ White et al. (2009)ᮡ ᮹ŝݡ⦺ 4⦺44 ֥ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ ~šǍ᳑⪵ᯥᔢᔢᔢ
⨹(objb ectivii evv structured clinical examinataa ion, OSCE)⬥ᨱ b ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ ☖ŝ☖☖ ⦹ŝŝ ḡ⦹⦹ ༜⦽༜༜ ⨹ྙ⧎ྙྙ (stataa ion)ᨱ ݡ⦹ᩍ ᯱᮉᱢ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ (self-ff remediataa ion)ᮥ ⧪⧁ ভ ᯕᨱ ⦹ᩍ b ⧎༊⧎⧎ ᮥ ⠪a⦽aa ƱᙹƱƱ ᮹
⦝ऽ႒ऽऽ ᮥ ᱽŖ⦹۵ äᨱ ݡ⦽ ᱶపᱢᯙ đŝෝ ၽ⢽ၽၽ ⦹⢽⢽ ᩡ݅.݅݅ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ
⧪⦽ ᯱᮉᱢ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮡ ᯱᝁᯕ ☖ŝ☖☖ ⦹ŝŝ ḡ⦹⦹ ༜⦽༜༜ OSCE ྙ⧎ྙྙ ᨱ ݡ⦹
ᩍ ᜅᜅಽ ₙŁₙₙ ྙŁŁ ⨭ᮥ ᯞŁ ⧪ࡽ OSCE᮹ ࠺ᩢᔢᮥᔢᔢ ℎ⦹໑ ᙺ Ł(reflection)⦹۵ äᮝಽ ᯕᨕᲙ ᯩᮝᯩᯩ ໑ᮝᮝ , ᯕॅ ᵲᨱᕽࠥ ⧊Ċ⧊⧊ ᖁ ᨱᕽ ⊂ᱶ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ᪅ᵡᵡ ₉ෝ ዡ ᙹ⊹ ᯕ⦹᮹⦹⦹ ᱱᙹෝ ၼᮡၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᨱí۵ ᯱ ᮉᱢ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᨱ ⦹ᩍ ᭚ᔍᯕ✙ෝ✙✙ ☖⦹ᩍ ⠪a ƱᙹƱƱ ᮹ ᕽᚁ ⦝ऽ ႒ᮥ ᱽŖ⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅ ə్ӹ ₉ʑ₉₉ OSCEᨱᕽ ᯕ᪡ zᮡzz ᕽᚁ ⦝ऽ႒ऽऽ ᮥ ᱽŖၼᮡၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᖒᱢᯕ ᯕෝ ᱽŖၼḡၼၼ ᦫᮡᦫᦫ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᨱ እ⦹ᩍ ᮁ᮹⦽
ᄡ⪵ෝ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ḡ۵ ᦫᦹ݅.݅݅ Doweww ll et al. (2006)ᮡ ݅ෙ݅݅ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ႊჶ
ᮥ ᗭ}⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅ əॅəə ᮡ ᖒᱢᯕ ᇡḥ⦽ 2, 3⦺֥ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ v
ࠥ ׳Ł׳׳ ᔢ⪙ᔢᔢ ᯲⪙⪙ ᬊ᯲᯲ ᮥ ⦹۵ ŝᱶᮥ }ၽ⦹ᩍ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮥ ⧪⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅ ᱡᯱॅᮡ ᯕ ŝᱶᮥ ☖⦹ᩍ ʑᅙŝ ᅕ݅ᅕᅕ Ł₉ᬱᱢᯙ ᯥᔢʑᔢᔢ ᚁᮥ
႑ᬑŁᬑᬑ ᯖ⯱ ᙹ ᯩ۵ᯩᯩ ฯᮡฯฯ ʑ⫭ෝ ᱽŖ⦹ᩍ ฯᮡฯฯ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ ࠥᬡࠥࠥ ᮥ ၼ ᦹ݅Ł݅݅ ᅕŁ⦹ŁŁ ᩡ݅.݅݅ Kneebone et al. (2008)ᮡ ŁŁŁ ᱢᯙ ⦝ऽ႒ऽऽ ႊ
ჶᨱ እ⦹ᩍ ᯙ░֘ᨱ ʑၹ⦽ၹၹ ⦝ऽ႒ऽऽ ᯕ ᜅ▽ᜅᜅ ᮹ ݅᧲⦽ ᯱഭᯱᯱ ᨱ ⦺ ᔾᯕ ᅕ݅ᅕᅕ ᬱ⪽⦹í⦹⦹ ᱲɝ⧁ɝɝ ᙹ ᯩᨕ ฯᮡฯฯ ᰆᱱᰆᰆ ᯕ ᯩᨩŁᨩᨩ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ อ᳒
อ
อ ࠥ᳒᳒ ࠥ ᳬᦹ݅Ł݅݅ ᅕŁ⦹ŁŁ ᩡ݅.݅݅ Hauer et al. (2008)ᮡ ၙǎ b ᮹ŝ ݡ⦺᮹ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪ƱᮂƱƱ ၰ ⠪a ₦ᯥᯱ 33ŝ᮹ŝŝ ໕ᱲ᳑ᔍ đŝෝ
ᅕŁ⦹ŁŁ ᩡ݅.݅݅ ᯕ ᩑǍᨱ ᮹⦹໕ b ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ۵ƱƱ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮝᮂᮂ ಽ ᅙ ᩑǍ᪡ǍǍ ᮁ ᔍ⦽
ᔍ
ᔍ ႊჶᮥ እ⦹ᩍ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ⪵ᵡᵡ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ෝ ᯕᬊ⦽ᬊᬊ ᩑ, ᝍ⊖ ⇵a⇵⇵ ᯥᔢ ᝅ ॒ᮥ ݅᧲⦽ ⩶┽ಽ ⧪⦹Ł⦹⦹ ᯕ⬥ᨱ ݅݅݅ ⠪aෝ ⧪⦹Ł⦹⦹
ᯩḡอ ᯕ᪡ zᮡzz ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᯕ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ ᯥᔢ܆ᔢᔢ ಆᨱ ᨕਅ ᄡ⪵ෝ aᲙaa ᪅۵
᪅
᪅ ḡᨱ ݡ⦽ ⬉ŝ۵ ၙḡᙹŁ ᅕŁ⦹ŁŁ ᩡ݅.݅݅ ↽ɝᨱ Klamen &
Williams (2011)۵ ᱩݡ⠪a ႊႊႊ ᮹ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ⪵ᵡᵡ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ෝ ᯕᬊ⦽ᬊᬊ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ
⧪⠪aᨱᕽ ӺᱽӺӺ ᱱᮥ ၼᮡၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ ⦽ ݍᨱ Ùℱ ə ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺
ॅᯕ ≉᧞⧩ ✚ᱶ ᩢᩎᮥ Ḳᵲᱢᮝಽ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ⦽ᮂᮂ đŝ ₉⬥₉₉ ᮹ ⠪ aᨱᕽ ə ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅᯕ ༉ࢱ༉༉ ⧊Ċ⧊⧊ ᖁᮥ չᨕᖑᮝᖑᖑ ໑ᮝᮝ ᱱᙹࠥᙹᙹ ☖ĥ☖☖ ᱢᮝಽ
ᮁ᮹⦹í⦹⦹ ᔢᔢᔢ ⧩ᮭᮥ ᅕŁ⦹ŁŁ ᩡ݅.݅݅ ᯕ᪡ zᮡzz ᩑǍ đŝෝ ᅕ໕ᅕᅕ ᯥ ᔢᙹ
ᔢ
ᔢ ⧪⠪a ⬥ᨱ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮥ ᝅ⧩ᮥ ভ ݡℕಽ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅᯕ ə ᰍƱ
ᮂᯕ ᯱᝁᨱí ࠥᬡࠥࠥ ᯕ ࡽ݅Ł݅݅ ᔾb⦹Ł⦹⦹ ᯩᮝᯩᯩ ໑ᮝᮝ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ⬥ᨱ ݅݅݅
⠪a⦽aa đŝ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪܆ಆᯕ ⨆ᔢࡹᔢᔢ ᨩ݅Ł݅݅ ᅕŁ⦹ŁŁ Ł⦹⦹ ᯩḡ อ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮹ ݡᔢᯕ ࡹ۵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅᯕ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮥ ၼḡၼၼ ᦫŁᦫᦫ ݅݅݅ ⠪a
ෝ ၼᦹᮥᦹᦹ ভ ᨕਁ⦽ ᖒᱢ᮹ ᄡ⪵ෝ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ۵ḡᨱ ݡ⦽ ᯱഭᯱᯱ a ᨧᨕ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᯕ ᖒᱢ ⨆ᔢᨱ ࠥᬡࠥࠥ ᯕ ࡹᨩ݅Ł݅݅ ݉ᱶ݉݉ ⦹ʑ⦹⦹ ᨱ۵ ྕญa ᯩ݅
Ł ᅕᯙ݅.݅݅
ᅙ ᩑǍᨱᕽ۵ PVRᮥRR ᯕᬊ⦽ᬊᬊ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮹ ᩍᇡaᇡᇡ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a᮹aa b ᩢᩎ᮹ ᖒᱢᨱ ᨕਅ ᩢ⨆ᮥ ၙⅅ۵ⅅⅅ ḡෝ ᦥᅕᦥᦥ ᦹᅕᅕ ݅.݅݅ ᄲಆℎ≉ ᩢ ᩎᨱᕽ۵ 1₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ⦹᭥ǭ᮹ ᖒᱢᮥ ӹ┡ԙ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ Ğᬑ PVR ᨱ šĥšš ᨧᯕ 1, 2₉ ᩑࠥ᮹ 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ૽ಘ⦹í⦹⦹ ᖒᱢᯕ ⨆ᔢࡽᔢᔢ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ┡┡ ᮝԍԍ ӹᮝᮝ ,ӹӹ 1₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ǭ᮹ ᖒᱢᮥ ӹ┡ԙ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ Ğᬑ PVRᯕ ᝅࡹḡ ᦫᦹ 1₉ ᩑࠥᨱᕽ۵ 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᖒᱢ ᯕ ᔢݚᔢᔢ ⯩ ⦹⦹ᩡŁᩡᩡ PVRᮥRR ⧪⦽ 2₉ ᩑࠥᨱᕽ۵ PVRᮥRR ၼḡၼၼ ᦫᮡ
ᦫ
ᦫ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ ᖒᱢᮡ ᮁ᮹⦽ ᄡ⪵ෝ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ḡ ᦫᦹᮝᦹᦹ ӹᮝᮝ PVRᮥRR ၼ
ᮡ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᖒᱢᮡ ᪅⯩᪅᪅ ಅ ᮁ᮹⦹í⦹⦹ ⦹⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅ ᝁℕḥₑ ᩢᩎᨱᕽ ۵ 1₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ⦹᭥ǭ᮹ ᖒᱢᮥ ӹ┡ԙ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ Ğᬑ 2₉ ⠪aᨱ ᕽ ᖒᱢᯕ ⨆ᔢࡹᔢᔢ ᨩᮝᨩᨩ ӹᮝᮝ ☖ĥ☖☖ ᱢᮝಽ ᮁ᮹⦽ ₉ᯕ۵ PVRᮥRR ⧪⦹
ḡ ᦫᮡᦫᦫ 1₉ ᩑࠥᨱอ ӹ┡ԍᮝԍԍ ໑ᮝᮝ , 1₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ǭ᮹ ᖒᱢᮥ
ӹ┡ԙ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ Ğᬑ PVRᯕ ᝅࡹḡ ᦫᦹ 1₉ ᩑࠥᨱᕽ۵ 2₉
⠪aᨱᕽ ᖒᱢᯕ ᔢݚᔢᔢ ⯩ ⦹⧩ ၹ໕, 2₉ ᩑࠥᨱ۵ PVR ᩍᇡᨱ šĥ
š
š ᨧᯕ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ǭ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᖒᱢᯕ 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᧞e ⦹(ᬱᱱᙹ۵
᧞e ᔢᔢᔢ ) ⦽ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍḡԍԍ อ ☖ĥ☖☖ ᱢᮝಽ ᮁ᮹⦽ ₉ᯕ۵ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ḡ ᦫᦹ݅.݅݅
ᯕ᪡ zᯕ ✚⯩ 1₉ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ ⧪⠪a᮹aa ᄲಆℎ≉ ᩢᩎᨱᕽ ᇡḥ⦽
ᖒᱢᮥ ᅕᯙ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ PVR ⧪ ᮁྕᨱ šĥšš ᨧᯕ 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᖒᱢ ᯕ ⨆ᔢࡹᔢᔢ ۵ äᮝಽ ᅝ ভ ᖒᱢᯕ ⨆ᔢࡹᔢᔢ ۵ ᯕᮁ۵ PVRᨱRR ࠥᬡࠥࠥ ᮥ ၼᦥᕽᦥᦥ ʑ ᅕ݅ᅕᅕ ۵ 1₉ ⠪a᮹aa ᇡḥ⦽ ᖒᱢ ᯱℕᯱᯱ a ᖒᱢ ⨆ᔢ᮹ ࠺ ʑ ᮁၽ ᯙᮝಽ ᯲ᬊ᯲᯲ ⦽ᬊᬊ äᮝಽ ᅕᯙ݅.݅݅ 1₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᬑᙹ⦽ᙹᙹ ᖒᱢ Table 4. Rating scales of questionnaire about PVR (median [range])
Items of questionnaire After 1st CPX in 2nd year (n = 35) The duration of the PVR was appropriate. 5.0 (2-5)
The level of the PVR was appropriate. 5.0 (3-5) The PVR was bidirectional communication. 5.0 (3-5)
The content of PVR was detailed. 5.0 (3-5)
The PVR with the faculty was effective. 5.0 (4-5) The faculty prepared well for the PVR. 4.5 (2-5) The PVR was helpful to me (student). 5.0 (4-5) The PVR should be continued next year. 5.0 (3-5)
Rating scale: 5, strongly agree; 4, agree; 3, neutral; 2, disagree; 1, strongly disagree.
CPX, clinical performance examination; PVR, precepted video review.
ᮥ ᅕᯙ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ Ğᬑ 1₉ ᩑࠥᨱ۵ 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᖒᱢᯕ ฯᯕ ⦹
⦹ᩡŁᩡᩡ PVRᮥRR ⧪⦽ 2₉ ᩑࠥᨱ۵ PVRᮥRR ၼᦹ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᖒᱢ ᯕ ✚⯩ ฯᯕ ⦹⦽ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ┡┡ ݅.݅݅ ᬱᱱᙹอ እƱ⦹ƱƱ ໕ ₉ᯕa ᨧ۵ äᮝಽ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ḡอ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ᱱᙹಽᙹᙹ እƱ⦹ƱƱ ໕ Ⓧí ⦹⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅ ᯕ۵ 1₉ ⠪a đŝ ᔢݡᱢᮝಽ ׳ᮡ ᖒᱢᮥ ၼᮡၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᯕ PVRʭḡʭʭ ၼŁၼၼ ӹᕽ
ӹ
ӹ ḡӹ⊹ӹӹ í ᯱᝁqᮥqq wŁww ⨹ ᵡእෝ ᔢݡᱢᮝಽ ॒⦽॒॒ ⯩ ⦽ đŝaŝŝ ᦥܭa ⇵ᱶࡹḡอ ᱶ⪶⦽⪶⪶ ᬱᯙᮡ ᳡ ݡȽ༉ȽȽ ᮹ ᩑǍෝ
⧪⧕ ᅕᦥᅕᅕ ᙹ ᯩᮥᯩᯩ äᮝಽ ᅕᯙ݅.݅݅ ₙŁₙₙ ಽ ᖒᱢᨱ šĥšš ᨧᯕ 2
₉ ᩑࠥ 1₉ ⠪a ⬥ᨱ PVRᮥRR ၼᮡၼၼ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ŝ ၼḡၼၼ ᦫᮡᦫᦫ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ 1, 2₉
⠪a᮹aa ᄲಆℎ≉ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ᱱᙹෝ እƱ⦽ƱƱ đŝ PVRŝRR šĥšš ᨧᯕ ᮁ᮹⦽
ᄡ⪵ෝ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ḡ ᦫᦹ݅.݅݅ ᯕ ᩎ PVRᯕ ᄲಆ ᖒᱢᨱ ⓑ ᩢ⨆ᮥ ᵝḡ ᦫᮭ
ᦫ
ᦫ ᮥ ᅕᩍᅕᅕ ᵡ݅Ł݅݅ ᔾb⦽bb ݅⦽⦽ .݅݅ ᝁℕḥₑ ᩢᩎࠥ ᄲಆℎ≉ ᩢᩎŝ እ
⦽
⇵ᯕෝ ᅕᩍᅕᅕ 1₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᇡḥ⦽ ᖒᱢᮥ ᅕᯙ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᖒᱢᯕ 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ฯᯕ ⨆ᔢࡽᔢᔢ äᮝಽ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ḡอ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᖒᱢ᮹ ⠙₉a₉₉ ᄲ ಆᨱ እ⧕ ⓑ šĥšš ಽ 2₉ ᩑࠥᨱ۵ ☖ĥ☖☖ ᱢᮝಽ ᮁ᮹⦽ ₉ᯕ۵ ӹ┡
ӹḡ ӹ
ӹ ᦫᮡᦫᦫ äᮝಽ ⇵ᱶࡽ݅.݅݅
ᯥᔢᩩᱩ ᩢᩎᨱᕽ۵ ⠪a ᩑࠥӹࠥࠥ ₉ᙹᨱ šĥšš ᨧᯕ ⓑ ᄡ⪵ෝ ᅕ ᯕḡ ᦫᦹ݅.݅݅ ᬱᱱᙹಽᙹᙹ ᇥᕾ⦹໕ 2₉ ᩑࠥ᮹ 1₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ǭ ᨱ ᭥⊹⦽ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ ᖒᱢᯕ 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ Ⓧí ⦹⦽ äᮝಽ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ḡอ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ᱱᙹෝ ⪹ᔑ⪹⪹ ⦹ᔑᔑ ᩍ ᇥᕾ⦽ đŝ ₉ᯕa ᨧ۵ äᮝಽ ӹ┡
ԍ݅.݅݅ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ᮹ᯱᯱ ᔍšĥšš ᩢᩎᨱᕽ۵ 1, 2₉ ᩑࠥᨱᕽ ༉ࢱ༉༉ 1₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᔢ᭥
ᔢ
ᔢ ǭ ᖒᱢᮥ ᅕᯙ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᖒᱢᯕ 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᮁ᮹⦹í⦹⦹ ⦹⦽ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ┡ ݅.݅݅ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ᮹ᯱᯱ ᔍšᔍ ĥšš ᮹ ⠪a۵ ᄲಆℎ≉ӹ ᝁℕḥₑᨱ እ⦹ᩍ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ⪵ᵡᵡ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ ᮹ᯱᯱ }ᯙᱢᯙ bᯕ Ⓧí ᯲ᬊ᯲᯲ ⦽ᬊᬊ ݅⦽⦽ Ł݅݅ ಅᲙ ᯩ
݅(Clauser et al., 2006; Engelhard, 1996; Harik et al., 2009). ə్အ ಽ 1, 2₉ ⠪a ᔍᯕ᮹ ᖒᱢ᮹ ᄡ⪵a⪵⪵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᙹ⧪܆ಆᮥ ၹᩢ⦹ʑ⦹⦹
ࠥ ⦹ḡ⦹⦹ อ 1, 2₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ⪽࠺⪽⪽ ⦽࠺࠺ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ⪵ᵡᵡ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ aᯱᯱ ݅݅݅ ʑ ভྙᨱ ᯕ
ॅ e᮹ }ᯙ₉a₉₉ ᩍʑᨱ ⓑ ᩢ⨆ᮥ ၙⅅᮥⅅⅅ äᮝಽ ᅕᯙ݅.݅݅ ə్ӹ ə ᱱᮥ qᦩ⦽ᦩᦩ ݅⦽⦽ Ł݅݅ ⦹ᩍࠥ ⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ᱱᙹෝ ᯕᬊ⦽ᬊᬊ ᇥᕾ đŝ PVR
⧪ŝ۵ šĥšš ᨧᯕ 1, 2֥ ₉ᨱᕽ 1₉ ⠪a ⦹᭥ǭ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᱱᙹaᙹᙹ 2
₉ ⠪aᨱᕽ ᔢᔢᔢ ⦽ ၹ໕ 1₉ ⠪a ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ǭ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᖒᱢᯕ 2₉ ⠪a ᨱᕽ Ⓧí ⦹⦹⦹ ⦽ äᮡ ⓑ ྙᱽྙྙ ಽ ᔾbࡽbb ݅.݅݅ ✚⯩ 2₉ ᩑࠥᨱᕽ PVR
ᮥ ⧪ၼᮡၼၼ ᔢ᭥ᔢᔢ ǭ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᖒᱢࠥ ⦹⦽ äᮝಽ ᅕᦥᅕᅕ ᯕ۵ ݉ḡ݉݉ PVRᮥRR ᝅ⦽݅⦽⦽ Ł݅݅ ⧕ᕽ Ʊᱶᯕ ࢁ äᮝಽ ᅕᯕᅕᅕ ḡ ᦫᮝᦫᦫ ໑ᮝᮝ ᯕᨱ ݡ
⦽ ᔩಽᬕಽಽ ⦝ऽ႒ऽऽ ᙹ݉ᯕ vǍvv ࡹᨕ ⧁ äᮝಽ ᩍĉḥ݅.݅݅ ᯥᔢᙹᔢᔢ
⧪⠪a᮹aa ੱ ݅ෙ݅݅ ᩢᩎᯙ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ Ʊᯱᯱ ᮂƱƱ ᩢᩎᮡ ⠪aᨱ ᔍᬊࡽ ༉ु༉༉ ᔍ ಡ᮹ ₥ᱱ⢽᮹ ⧎༊⧎⧎ ᮥ ༉ࢱ༉༉ ⧊⦹ᩍࠥ ə ᙹaᙹᙹ b ⠪aݚaa 2-7}ᨱ ᇩ ŝ⦹
ŝ
ŝ ᩍ ᅙ ᩑǍᨱᕽ۵ ᱽ⦹ᩡ݅.݅݅
PVRᨱ ݡ⦽ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ᮹ॅॅ ၹ᮲ၹၹ ᮡ ๅᬑ ɮᱶᱢᯙ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ݅.݅݅ ᯕ۵ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅᯕ ᯱᝁᯕ ḥഭ⦹ഭഭ ۵ ༉༉༉ ᮥ ᝅᱽ ᜅᜅಽ ḡ⍽ᅕ໕ᅕᅕ ᕽ ə ⠪a đŝෝ ᅝ ᙹ ᯩ۵ᯩᯩ ʑ⫭ෝ PVRᮥRR ☖⦹ᩍ ᮭᮝᮭᮭ ಽ ᱲ⧁ ᙹ
ᯩᨩ݅۵ ᱱᯕ Ⓧí ᯲ᬊ᯲᯲ ⦽ᬊᬊ äᮝಽ ᩍĉḥ݅.݅݅ PVRᮥRR ݕݚݕݕ ⦽ݚݚ ƱᮂƱƱ
ᯱ᮹
ᯱ
ᯱ ┽ࠥ᪡ ⦝ऽ႒ऽऽ ᮥ ᵝ۵ ܆ಆࠥ ᨕ۱ ᱶࠥ ᩢ⨆ᮥ ၙⅅᮥⅅⅅ äᮝ
ಽ ᔾbࡽbb ݅.݅݅
ᯕᔢ᮹ đŝෝ ᳦⧊᳦᳦ ⦹ᩍ ᅕ໕ᅕᅕ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ॅ ᜅᜅಽ۵ಽಽ PVRᮥRR ☖⦹ᩍ
ⓑ ࠥᬡࠥࠥ ᮥ ၼᮡၼၼ äᮝಽ ᔾb⧩ḡอ PVRᨱRR ᮹⦽ ᝅḩᱢᯙ ᝅಆ ⨆ ᔢ᮹ ⬉ŝ۵ ၙၙ⦽ äᮝಽ ᅕᯙ݅.݅݅ ᔍᝅ ṈᮡṈṈ e᮹ PVR ᯱℕᯱᯱ a
⦺ᔾ
⦺
⦺ ᮹ ᝅಆᮥ ⨆ᔢᔢᔢ ┅ʑ۵ ᨕಖ݅Ł݅݅ ⧁ḡ⧁⧁ ࠥ PVRᯕ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᨱí ᜅᜅಽ ᝅಆᮥ ⨆ᔢᔢᔢ ┅ಅ יಆיי ⧕ ⦽݅⦽⦽ ۵ ࠺ʑ࠺࠺ ෝ ᇡᩍ⦹ᩍ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᯥᔢ܆ᔢᔢ ಆᮥ ⨆ᔢᔢᔢ ┍ ᙹ ᯩᮥᯩᯩ äᮝಽ ʑݡ⦹ᩡᮝᩡᩡ ӹᮝᮝ ᅙ ᩑǍ đ ŝ ə ⬉ŝࠥŝŝ ၙၙ⦽ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ┡┡ ݅.݅݅ ݉ ᅙ ᩑǍ۵ 1} ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ᨱƱƱ ᕽ ᗭᙹᗭᗭ ᮹ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮥ ݡᔢᮝᔢᔢ ಽ ⦹Ł⦹⦹ ⠪a ʑษ݅ ᔍᬊᔍᬊᬊ ಡ, ⠪aᯱaa (⢽ᵡ⢽⢽ ⪵ᵡᵡ ⪹ᯱ⪹⪹ )ᯱᯱ ॒ᯕ ༉ࢱ༉༉ ݅݅݅ ʑ ভྙᨱ ᩑǍ đŝෝ ᯝၹ⪵ၹၹ ⦹⪵⪵ ʑ⦹⦹ ᨱ ۵ ྕญa ෙ ݅.݅݅ ⦹ḡ⦹⦹ อ ᅙ ᩑǍ đŝಽŝŝ ❱݉❱❱ ⧁݉݉ ভ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮥ ☖⦹
ᩍ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᯥᔢ܆ᔢᔢ ಆᮥ ⨆ᔢᔢᔢ ┅Łᯱ ⦽݅⦽⦽ ໕ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᮥ ☖⦹ᩍ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᝅᰍ ᯥᔢ܆ᔢᔢ ಆᮥ ⨆ᔢᔢᔢ ┍ ᙹ ᯩ۵ᯩᯩ ᅕ݅ᅕᅕ Ǎ᳑⪵ࡹ⪵⪵ Ł ᝍ⪵ࡽ
ŝᱶ(ᩩෝ ॅᨕ ⦺ᔾ⦺⦺ ᮹ ᯥᔢ܆ᔢᔢ ಆ ᵲᨱᕽ ≉᧞⦽ ᩢᩎᮥ ᅕ݅ᅕᅕ Ḳᵲ ᱢᮝಽ ᩑ⧁ ᙹ ᯩ۵ᯩᯩ ᝅŝ ᱶ)ᯕ ษಉࡹᨕ ᰍƱᮂƱƱ ᨱ ᮹⦽ ⬉ ŝa
ŝ
ŝ ӹ┡ԁ┡ äᮝಽ ᅕᯙ݅.݅݅
"$,/08-&%(.&/5
ᯕ ᩑǍ۵ 2011⦺֥ࠥ ᯙ⦹ݡ⦺Ʊ⦺⦺ ᮹ ḡᬱᨱ ᮹⦹ᩍ ᙹ⧪ࡹᨩ݅
(INHA-2820).
ₙŁྙ⨭
Beckert, L., Wilkinson, T. J., & Sainsbury, R. (2003). A needs-based study and examination skills course improves students’ performance. Med Educ, 37(5), 424-428.
Bennett, A. J., Roman, B., Arnold, L. M., Kay, J., & Goldenhar, L. M. (2005).
Professionalism deficits among medical students: models of identifica- tion and intervention. Acad Psychiatry, 29(5), 426-432.
Clauser, B. E., Harik, P., & Margolis, M. J. (2006). A multivariate generalizabil- ity analysis of data from a performance assessment of physicians’ clinical skills. J Educ Meas, 43, 173-191.
Dowell, J., Dent, J. A., & Duffy, R. (2006). What to do about medical students with unsatisfactory consultation skills? Med Teach, 28(5), 443-446.
Engelhard, G. (1996). Evaluating rater accuracy in performance assessments.
J Educ Meas, 33(1), 56-70.
Faustinella, F., Orlando, P. R., Colletti, L. A., Juneja, H. S., & Perkowski, L. C.
(2004). Remediation strategies and students’ clinical performance. Med Teach, 26(7), 664-665.
Harik, P., Clauser, B. E., Grabovsky, I., Nungester, R. J., Swanson, D., & Nan- dakumar, R. (2009). An examination of rater drift within a generalizabili- ty theory framework. J Educ Meas, 46(1), 43-58.
Hauer, K. E., Teherani, A., Irby, D. M., Kerr, K. M., & O’Sullivan, P. S. (2008).
Approaches to medical student remediation after a comprehensive clini- cal skills examination. Med Educ, 42(1), 104-112.
Hauer, K. E., Teherani, A., Kerr, K. M., O’sullivan, P. S., & Irby, D. M. (2006).
Impact of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clini- cal Skills exam on medical school clinical skills assessment. Acad Med, 81(10 Suppl), S13-S16.
Kim, J. H. (2010). The effect of precepted video review as remediation for poor performer in clinical performance examination. Simul Healthc, 5(3), 187.
Kim, J. H. (2010). Does sharing information before a clinical skills examina- tion impact student performance? Med Teach, 32(9), 747-753.
Klamen, D. L., & Williams, R. G. (2011). The efficacy of a targeted remedia- tion process for students who fail standardized patient examinations. Teach Learn Med, 23(1), 3-11.
Kneebone, R., Bello, F., Nestel, D., Mooney, N., Codling, A., Yadollahi, F., Tier- ney, T., Wilcockson, D., & Darzi, A. (2008). Learner-centred feedback us- ing remote assessment of clinical procedures. Med Teach, 30(8), 795-801.
Lin, C. T., Barley, G. E., & Cifuentes, M. (2001). Personalized remedial inten- sive training of one medical student in communication and interview skills. Teach Learn Med, 13(4), 232-239.
Magarian, G. J., & Campbell, S. M. (1992). A tutorial for students demonstrat-
ing adequate skills but inadequate knowledge after completing a medi- cine clerkship at the Oregon Health Sciences University. Acad Med, 67(4), 277-278.
Rosenblatt, M. A., & Schartel, S. A. (1999). Evaluation, feedback, and reme- diation in anesthesiology residency training: a survey of 124 United States programs. J Clin Anesth, 11(6), 519-527.
Saxena, V., O’Sullivan, P. S., Teherani, A., Irby, D. M., & Hauer, K. E. (2009).
Remediation techniques for student performance problems after a com- prehensive clinical skills assessment. Acad Med, 84(5), 669-676.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Post-examination analysis of objective tests. Med Teach, 33(6), 447-458.
White, C. B., Ross, P. T., & Gruppen, L. D. (2009). Remediating students’ failed OSCE performances at one school: the effects of self-assessment, reflec- tion, and feedback. Acad Med, 84(5), 651-654.
