Raupach, Tobias

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","14"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","GMS Zeitschrift für medizinische Ausbildung"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","14"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","29"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Schiekirka, Sarah"],["dc.contributor.author","Münscher, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Beißbarth, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Himmel, Wolfgang"],["dc.contributor.author","Burckhardt, Gerhard"],["dc.contributor.author","Pukrop, Tobias"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-10T08:14:07Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-10T08:14:07Z"],["dc.date.issued","2012"],["dc.description.abstract","Zielsetzung: Aktuell werden an den deutschen medizinischen Fakultäten unterschiedliche Konzepte zur leistungsorientierten Mittelvergabe (LOM)in der Lehre diskutiert. Die Umsetzung scheitert mitunter am Mangel valider Messkriterien zur Beurteilung der Lehrqualität. Neben der Struktur und den Prozessen der Lehre sollte das Ergebnis der Lehre im Mittelpunkt der Qualitätsbewertung stehen. Ziele dieser Arbeit waren die Erprobung eines neuen, lernzielbezogenen Evaluationssystems im klinischen Abschnitt des Studiums der Humanmedizin und der Vergleich der Ergebnisse mit den Daten eines traditionellen Evaluationsverfahrens. Methodik: Aus studentischen Selbsteinschätzungen zu Beginn und Ende eines jeden Lehrmoduls wurde nach einer neu entwickelten Formel der lernzielbezogene, prozentuale Lernerfolg berechnet. Die Lernerfolgs- Mittelwerte pro Modul wurden mit traditionellen Evaluationsparametern, insbesondere mit Globalbewertungen, ins Verhältnis gesetzt. Ergebnisse: Der mittels vergleichender Selbsteinschätzungen berechnete Lernerfolg und die Globalbewertungen produzierten deutlich unterschiedliche Rangfolgen der 21 klinischen Module. Zwischen dem Lernerfolg und den Globalbewertungen fand sich keine statistisch signifikante Korrelation. Allerdings korrelierten die Globalbewertungen stark mit den studentischen Erwartungen vor Modulbeginn und mit strukturellen und prozeduralen Parametern der Lehre (Pearson’s r zwischen 0,7 und 0,9). Schlussfolgerung: Die Messung des Lernzuwachses mittels vergleichender studentischer Selbsteinschätzungen kann die traditionelle Evaluation um eine wichtige Dimension erweitern. Im Unterschied zu studentischen Globalbewertungen ist das neue Instrument lernzielbezogen und unabhängiger vom Einfluss Konstrukt-irrelevanter Parameter. Hinsichtlich der Entwicklung eines LOM-Algorithmus eignet sich das neue Instrument gut zur Beurteilung der Lehrqualität."],["dc.identifier.fs","591967"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/9538"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/61439"],["dc.language.iso","de"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation.issn","1860-3572"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Universitätsmedizin Göttingen"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","Implementierung und Erprobung eines Lernziel-basierten Evaluationssystems im Studium der Humanmedizin"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","30"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Education"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","15"],["dc.contributor.author","Schiekirka, Sarah"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:59:47Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:59:47Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Student ratings are a popular source of course evaluations in undergraduate medical education. Data on the reliability and validity of such ratings have mostly been derived from studies unrelated to medical education. Since medical education differs considerably from other higher education settings, an analysis of factors influencing overall student ratings with a specific focus on medical education was needed. Methods: For the purpose of this systematic review, online databases (PubMed, PsycInfo and Web of Science) were searched up to August 1st, 2013. Original research articles on the use of student ratings in course evaluations in undergraduate medical education were eligible for inclusion. Included studies considered the format of evaluation tools and assessed the association of independent and dependent (i.e., overall course ratings) variables. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were checked by two independent reviewers, and results were synthesised in a narrative review. Results: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Qualitative research (2 studies) indicated that overall course ratings are mainly influenced by student satisfaction with teaching and exam difficulty rather than objective determinants of high quality teaching. Quantitative research (23 studies) yielded various influencing factors related to four categories: student characteristics, exposure to teaching, satisfaction with examinations and the evaluation process itself. Female gender, greater initial interest in course content, higher exam scores and higher satisfaction with exams were associated with more positive overall course ratings. Conclusions: Due to the heterogeneity and methodological limitations of included studies, results must be interpreted with caution. Medical educators need to be aware of various influences on student ratings when developing data collection instruments and interpreting evaluation results. More research into the reliability and validity of overall course ratings as typically used in the evaluation of undergraduate medical education is warranted."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s12909-015-0311-8"],["dc.identifier.isi","000352341400001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","25853890"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/12299"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/37665"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Biomed Central Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1472-6920"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","A systematic review of factors influencing student ratings in undergraduate medical education course evaluations"],["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"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","45"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Education"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","12"],["dc.contributor.author","Schiekirka, Sarah"],["dc.contributor.author","Reinhardt, Deborah"],["dc.contributor.author","Heim, Susanne"],["dc.contributor.author","Fabry, Goetz"],["dc.contributor.author","Pukrop, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Anders, Sven"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:09:11Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:09:11Z"],["dc.date.issued","2012"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Evaluation is an integral part of medical education. Despite a wide use of various evaluation tools, little is known about student perceptions regarding the purpose and desired consequences of evaluation. Such knowledge is important to facilitate interpretation of evaluation results. The aims of this study were to elicit student views on the purpose of evaluation, indicators of teaching quality, evaluation tools and possible consequences drawn from evaluation data. Methods: This qualitative study involved 17 undergraduate medical students in Years 3 and 4 participating in 3 focus group interviews. Content analysis was conducted by two different researchers. Results: Evaluation was viewed as a means to facilitate improvements within medical education. Teaching quality was believed to be dependent on content, process, teacher and student characteristics as well as learning outcome, with an emphasis on the latter. Students preferred online evaluations over paper-and-pencil forms and suggested circulating results among all faculty and students. Students strongly favoured the allocation of rewards and incentives for good teaching to individual teachers. Conclusions: In addition to assessing structural aspects of teaching, evaluation tools need to adequately address learning outcome. The use of reliable and valid evaluation methods is a prerequisite for resource allocation to individual teachers based on evaluation results."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2012"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1472-6920-12-45"],["dc.identifier.isi","000306900100001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","22726271"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/7830"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/26199"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Biomed Central Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1472-6920"],["dc.rights","CC BY 2.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0"],["dc.title","Student perceptions of evaluation in undergraduate medical education: A qualitative study from one medical school"],["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"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","64"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Surgical Research"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","73"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","191"],["dc.contributor.author","Kiehl, Christoph"],["dc.contributor.author","Simmenroth-Nayda, Anne"],["dc.contributor.author","Goerlich, Yvonne"],["dc.contributor.author","Entwistle, Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Schiekirka, Sarah"],["dc.contributor.author","Ghadimi, B. Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Koeniga, Sarah"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:36:09Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:36:09Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Communication skills combined with specialized knowledge are fundamental to the doctor-patient relationship in surgery. During a single-station video-recorded objective structured clinical examination (VOSCE), students were tasked with obtaining informed consent. Our aim was to develop a standardized and quality-assured assessment method in undergraduate education. Methods: One hundred fifty-five students in their fifth year of medical school (78 videos) participated in a summative VOSCE within the framework of the teaching module \"Operative Medicine.\" They prepared for three clinical scenarios and the surgical procedures involved. The examination comprised participants having to obtain informed consent from simulated patients, video recording their performance. Students were assessed by two independent raters, the background of one of whom was nonsurgical. Results were statistically tested using SPSS. Results: Students' scores were all beyond the pass mark of 70%, averaging 91.0% (+/- 4.0%), 88.4% (+/- 4.4%), and 87.0% (+/- 4.7%) for the appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and inguinal hernia repair checklist, respectively. Most items (68%-89% of the checklists) were found to have fair to excellent discrimination values. Cronbach's alpha values ranged between 0.565 and 0.605 for the individual checklists. Interrater agreement was strong (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.80, P < 0.01; intraclass correlation coefficient 2.1 = 0.78). Conclusions: The VOSCE is both feasible and reliable as a method of assessing student communication skills and the application of clinical knowledge while obtaining informed consent in surgery. This method is efficient (flexible rating outside normal working hours possible with reductions in administrative load) and may be used for high-stakes evaluation of student performance. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Office of the Dean of Studies"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jss.2014.01.048"],["dc.identifier.isi","000341023700010"],["dc.identifier.pmid","24746952"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/10857"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/32549"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.relation.issn","1095-8673"],["dc.relation.issn","0022-4804"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Allgemeinmedizin"],["dc.rights","CC BY-NC-SA 3.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0"],["dc.title","Standardized and quality-assured video-recorded examination in undergraduate education: informed consent prior to surgery"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","149"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Education"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","14"],["dc.contributor.author","Schiekirka, Sarah"],["dc.contributor.author","Anders, Sven"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:37:35Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:37:35Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Estimating learning outcome from comparative student self-ratings is a reliable and valid method to identify specific strengths and shortcomings in undergraduate medical curricula. However, requiring students to complete two evaluation forms (i.e. one before and one after teaching) might adversely affect response rates. Alternatively, students could be asked to rate their initial performance level retrospectively. This approach might threaten the validity of results due to response shift or effort justification bias. Methods: Two consecutive cohorts of medical students enrolled in a six-week cardio-respiratory module were enrolled in this study. In both cohorts, performance gain was estimated for 33 specific learning objectives. In the first cohort, outcomes calculated from ratings provided before (pretest) and after (posttest) teaching were compared to outcomes derived from comparative self-ratings collected after teaching only (thentest and posttest). In the second cohort, only thentests and posttests were used to calculate outcomes, but data collection tools differed with regard to item presentation. In one group, thentest and posttest ratings were obtained sequentially on separate forms while in the other, both ratings were obtained simultaneously for each learning objective. Results: Using thentest ratings to calculate performance gain produced slightly higher values than using true pretest ratings. Direct comparison of then-and posttest ratings also yielded slightly higher performance gain than sequential ratings, but this effect was negligibly small. Conclusions: Given the small effect sizes, using thentests appears to be equivalent to using true pretest ratings. Item presentation in the posttest does not significantly impact on results."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Faculty of Medicine, Georg-August-University Gottingen"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1472-6920-14-149"],["dc.identifier.isi","000339517100001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","25043503"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/10501"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/32873"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Biomed Central Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1472-6920"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Assessment of two different types of bias affecting the results of outcome-based evaluation in undergraduate medical education"],["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"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","GMS Zeitschrift für medizinische Ausbildung"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","30"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Vogel, Daniela"],["dc.contributor.author","Schiekirka, Sarah"],["dc.contributor.author","Keijsers, Carolina"],["dc.contributor.author","Ten Cate, Olle"],["dc.contributor.author","Harendza, Sigrid"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:40:10Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:40:10Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013"],["dc.description.abstract","AIMS: In Germany, the final year of undergraduate medical education ('practice year') consists of three 16-week clinical attachments, two of which are internal medicine and surgery. Students can choose a specific specialty for their third 16-week attachment. Practice year students do not receive specific teaching to prepare them for the National Licensing Examination. It is unknown whether knowledge levels increase during this year. This study aimed at assessing knowledge at the beginning and the end of the final year of medical school. METHODS: Three hundred pre-selected United States Medical Licensing Examination type items from ten medical disciplines were reviewed by ten recent medical graduates from the Netherlands and Germany. The resulting test included 150 items and was taken by 77 and 79 final year medical students from Göttingen and Hamburg at the beginning and the end of their practice year, respectively. RESULTS: Cronbach's α of the pre- and post-test was 0.75 and 0.68, respectively. Mean percent scores in the pre- and post-test were 63.9±6.9 and 69.4±5.7, respectively (p<0.001; effect size calculated as Cohen's d: 0.87). In individual students, post-test scores were particularly high for items related to their specific chosen specialty. CONCLUSION: The knowledge test used in this study provides a suitable external tool to assess progress of undergraduate medical students in their knowledge during the practice year. The pre-test may be used to guide individual learning behaviour during this final year of undergraduate education."],["dc.description.abstract","Zielsetzung: In Deutschland besteht das letzte Jahr des Studiums der Humanmedizin (\"Praktisches Jahr\", PJ) aus drei Tertialen von je 16 Wochen, von denen eines in der Inneren Medizin und eines in der Chirurgie abzuleisten ist. Die Fachrichtung des dritten Tertials von 16 Wochen kann von den Studierenden frei gewählt werden.Während des Praktischen Jahres findet keine gezielte Vorbereitung auf den schriftlichen Teil des Staatsexamens statt. Es ist unklar, inwieweit die Studierenden während des Praktischen Jahres auch neue Wissensinhalte erlernen. Ziel dieser Studie war es, zu Beginn und am Ende des Praktischen Jahres Wissensinhalte zu überprüfen. Methodik: Zehn Absolventen des Medizinstudiums in Deutschland und den Niederlanden trafen eine Auswahl aus 300 vorselektierten Fragen der US-amerikanischen Abschlussprüfung (USMLE), die zehn verschiedenen Fachrichtungen zugeordnet waren. Die ausgewählten 150 Fragen wurden im Rahmen zweier Tests PJ-Studierenden aus Göttingen und Hamburg vorgelegt: einmal zu Beginn (n=77 Studierende) und einmal am Ende des Praktischen Jahres (n=79). Ergebnisse: Die interne Konsistenz der beiden Tests (Cronbach’s α) betrug 0,75 (Prätest) bzw. 0,68 (Posttest). Der Anteil richtig beantwor- teter Fragen betrug im Prätest 63,9±6,9 und im Posttest 69,4±5,7 (p<0,001; Effektstärke als Cohen’s d: 0,87). Individuelle Studierende Abteilung für Geriatrische schnitten bei denjenigen Fragen besonders gut ab, die sich auf Inhalte ihres Wahlfachs bezogen. Schlussfolgerung: Der in dieser Studie verwendete Wissenstest eignet sich als externes Instrument zur Messung des Wissenszuwachses von Studierenden im Praktischen Jahr. Zudem kann der Prätest genutzt werden, um Studierende bei der Planung ihres Lernverhaltens während des Praktischen Jahres zu unterstützen."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3205/zma000876"],["dc.identifier.fs","600114"],["dc.identifier.pmid","24062813"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/10720"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/58106"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation.issn","1860-3572"],["dc.rights","CC BY-NC-ND 3.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0"],["dc.subject.mesh","Adult"],["dc.subject.mesh","Clinical Competence"],["dc.subject.mesh","Education, Medical, Undergraduate"],["dc.subject.mesh","Educational Measurement"],["dc.subject.mesh","Female"],["dc.subject.mesh","General Surgery"],["dc.subject.mesh","Germany"],["dc.subject.mesh","Humans"],["dc.subject.mesh","Internal Medicine"],["dc.subject.mesh","Internship and Residency"],["dc.subject.mesh","Licensure, Medical"],["dc.subject.mesh","Male"],["dc.subject.mesh","Medicine"],["dc.subject.mesh","Preceptorship"],["dc.subject.mesh","Questionnaires"],["dc.title","Increase in medical knowledge during the final year of undergraduate medical education in Germany."],["dc.title.alternative","Wissenszuwachs im Praktischen Jahr des Medizinstudiums in Deutschland"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]