Developing Comprehensive Strategies to Evaluate Medical School Curricula
Evaluation of medical school curriculum is important to document outcomes, effectiveness of learning, engagement in quality improvement, and to meet accreditation compliance. This monograph provides a roadmap and resource for medical schools to meaningfully evaluate their curriculum based on specific metrics. The method of evaluation includes an examination of Kirkpatrick’s levels of outcomes including reactions, learning, behavior, and impact. It is important that student outcomes are mapped in relation to curricular objectives. There are specific outcomes that may be utilized to determine if the curriculum has met the institution’s goals. The first is comparison to national metrics (United States Medical Licensing Examinations and American Association of Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire). Second, medical schools collect internal program metrics, which include specific student performance metrics, such as number of students graduating, attrition, and matching to specialty. Further, schools may examine student performance and surveys in the preclerkship and clinical phases (e.g., grades, failing courses, survey responses about the curriculum), including qualitative responses on surveys or focus groups. As the learning environment is critical to learning, a deep dive to understand the environment and mistreatment may be important for program evaluation. This may be performed by specifically examining the Graduation Questionnaire, internal surveys, and mistreatment reporting. Finally, there are numerous attitudinal instruments that may help medical schools understand their students’ development at one point or over time. These include measurements of stress, wellness, burnout, lifelong learning, and attitudes toward patient safety. Together, examining the composite of outcomes helps to understand and improve the medical school curriculum.
KeywordsMedical students Evaluation Assessment
Dr. Santen receives funding for the evaluation work related to the Accelerating Change in Medical Education Grant from the American Medical Association.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Standards, Publications, & Notification Forms | LCME. http://lcme.org/publications/#Standards. Accessed April 2, 2018.
- 4.Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating training programs: the four levels. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; 2006.Google Scholar
- 8.McCoubrie P. Metrics in medical education. Ulster Med J. 2010;79(2):52–6.Google Scholar
- 9.Graduation Questionnaire (GQ) - data and analysis - AAMC. https://www.aamc.org/data/gq/. Accessed April 2, 2018.
- 10.NCIEC_focus_group_manual_07–20112.pdf. http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NCIEC_focus_group_manual_07-20112.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2018.
- 12.Marshall RE. Measuring the medical school learning environment. J Med Educ. 1978;53(2):98–104.Google Scholar
- 14.About the WHO-5. https://www.psykiatri-regionh.dk/who-5/about-the-who-5/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed April 20, 2018.
- 17.Dyrbye LN, Szydlo DW, Downing SM, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Development and preliminary psychometric properties of a well-being index for medical students. BMC Med Educ 2010;10:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-8.
- 18.Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Occup Behav. 1981;2(2):99–113.Google Scholar
- 19.Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav Med. 2008;15(3):194–200.Google Scholar
- 20.Connor KM, Davidson JRT. Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety 1091–4269. 2003;18(2):76–82.Google Scholar
- 26.Geller G, Tambor ES, Chase GA, Holtzman NA. Measuring physicians’ tolerance for ambiguity and its relationship to their reported practices regarding genetic testing. Med Care. 1993;31(11):989–1001.Google Scholar
- 31.Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Kroenke K, Linzer M, de Gruy FV 3rd, Hahn SR, et al. Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care. The PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA. 1994;272(22):1749–56.Google Scholar
- 32.Ware JE, GlaxoSmithKline. How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: a manual for users of the of the SF-8 health survey : (with a supplement on the SF-6 health survey). Lincoln, RI; Boston, MA: QualityMetric, Inc. ; Health Assessment Lab; 2001.Google Scholar
- 34.Nolan RL, Haeckel SH. The role of technology in an information age: transforming symbols into action. 1994. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=1203. Accessed April 20, 2018.
- 35.Casebeer A. Application of SWOT analysis. Brit J Hosp Med. 1993;49(6):430–1.Google Scholar