Poinstingl, Herbert

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","137"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Education"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","17"],["dc.contributor.author","Müller, Tjark"],["dc.contributor.author","Montano, Diego"],["dc.contributor.author","Poinstingl, Herbert"],["dc.contributor.author","Dreiling, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Schiekirka-Schwake, Sarah"],["dc.contributor.author","Anders, Sven"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Steinbuechel, Nicole von"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:43:52Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:43:52Z"],["dc.date.issued","2017"],["dc.description.abstract","BACKGROUND: The seven categories of the Stanford Faculty Development Program (SFDP) represent a framework for planning and assessing medical teaching. Nevertheless, so far there is no specific evaluation tool for large-group lectures that is based on these categories. This paper reports the development and psychometric validation of a short German evaluation tool for large-group lectures in medical education (SETMED-L: 'Student Evaluation of Teaching in MEDical Lectures') based on the SFDP-categories. METHODS: Data were collected at two German medical schools. In Study 1, a full information factor analysis of the new 14-item questionnaire was performed. In Study 2, following cognitive debriefings and adjustments, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed. The model was tested for invariance across medical schools and student gender. Convergent validity was assessed by comparison with results of the FEVOR questionnaire. RESULTS: Study 1 (n = 922) yielded a three-factor solution with one major (10 items) and two minor factors (2 items each). In Study 2 (n = 2740), this factor structure was confirmed. Scale reliability ranged between α = 0.71 and α = 0.88. Measurement invariance was given across student gender but not across medical schools. Convergent validity in the subsample tested (n = 246) yielded acceptable results. CONCLUSION: The SETMED-L showed satisfactory to very good psychometric characteristics. The main advantages are its short yet comprehensive form, the integration of SFDP-categories and its focus on medical education."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s12909-017-0970-8"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/15135"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/58988"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.intern","In goescholar not merged with http://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/14707 but duplicate"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Arbeitsbereich Empirische Bildungsforschung mit dem Schwerpunkt Schul- und Unterrichtsforschung"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Evaluation of large-group lectures in medicine – development of the SETMED-L (Student Evaluation of Teaching in MEDical Lectures) questionnaire"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","7928014"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Behavioural Neurology"],["dc.contributor.author","von Steinbuechel, Nicole"],["dc.contributor.author","Covic, Amra"],["dc.contributor.author","Polinder, Suzanne"],["dc.contributor.author","Kohlmann, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Cepulyte, Ugne"],["dc.contributor.author","Poinstingl, Herbert"],["dc.contributor.author","Backhaus, Joy C."],["dc.contributor.author","Bakx, Wilbert"],["dc.contributor.author","Bullinger, Monika"],["dc.contributor.author","Christensen, Anne-Lise"],["dc.contributor.author","Formisano, Rita"],["dc.contributor.author","Gibbons, Henning"],["dc.contributor.author","Hoefer, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Koskinen, Sanna"],["dc.contributor.author","Maas, Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Neugebauer, Edmund"],["dc.contributor.author","Powell, Jane"],["dc.contributor.author","Sarajuuri, Jaana"],["dc.contributor.author","Sasse, Nadine"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmidt, Silke"],["dc.contributor.author","Muehlan, Holger"],["dc.contributor.author","von Wild, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Zitnay, George"],["dc.contributor.author","Truelle, Jean-Luc"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T10:21:01Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T10:21:01Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.description.abstract","Psychosocial, emotional, and physical problems can emerge after traumatic brain injury (TBI), potentially impacting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Until now, however, neither the discriminatory power of disease-specific (QOLIBRI) and generic (SF-36) HRQoL nor their correlates have been compared in detail. These aspects as well as some psychometric item characteristics were studied in a sample of 795 TBI survivors. The Shannon H' index absolute informativity, as an indicator of an instrument's power to differentiate between individuals within a specific group or health state, was investigated. Psychometric performance of the two instruments was predominantly good, generally higher, and more homogenous for the QOLIBRI than for the SF-36 subscales. Notably, the SF-36 \"Role Physical,\" \" Role Emotional,\" and \"Social Functioning\" subscales showed less satisfactory discriminatory power than all other dimensions or the sum scores of both instruments. The absolute informativity of disease-specific as well as generic HRQoL instruments concerning the different groups defined by different correlates differed significantly. When the focus is on how a certain subscale or sum score differentiates between individuals in one specific dimension/health state, the QOLIBRI can be recommended as the preferable instrument."],["dc.description.sponsorship","ZNS-Hannelore Kohl Stiftung [2008014/2008019]"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1155/2016/7928014"],["dc.identifier.isi","000370269100001"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/13148"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/42001"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Hindawi Publishing Corp"],["dc.relation.issn","1875-8584"],["dc.relation.issn","0953-4180"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life after TBI: Comparison of a Disease-Specific (QOLIBRI) with a Generic (SF-36) Instrument"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]