Raupach, Tobias

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","11"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","German Medical Science : GMS e-journal"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","18"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","12"],["dc.contributor.author","Herrmann-Lingen, Christoph"],["dc.contributor.author","Brunner, Edgar"],["dc.contributor.author","Hildenbrand, Sibylle"],["dc.contributor.author","Loew, Thomas H."],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Spies, Claudia D."],["dc.contributor.author","Treede, Rolf-Detlef"],["dc.contributor.author","Vahl, Christian-Friedrich"],["dc.contributor.author","Wenz, Hans-Jürgen"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:41:08Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:41:08Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","OBJECTIVE: The evaluation of medical research performance is a key prerequisite for the systematic advancement of medical faculties, research foci, academic departments, and individual scientists' careers. However, it is often based on vaguely defined aims and questionable methods and can thereby lead to unwanted regulatory effects. The current paper aims at defining the position of German academic medicine toward the aims, methods, and consequences of its evaluation. METHODS: During the Berlin Forum of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) held on 18 October 2013, international experts presented data on methods for evaluating medical research performance. Subsequent discussions among representatives of relevant scientific organizations and within three ad-hoc writing groups led to a first draft of this article. Further discussions within the AWMF Committee for Evaluation of Performance in Research and Teaching and the AWMF Executive Board resulted in the final consented version presented here. RESULTS: The AWMF recommends modifications to the current system of evaluating medical research performance. Evaluations should follow clearly defined and communicated aims and consist of both summative and formative components. Informed peer reviews are valuable but feasible in longer time intervals only. They can be complemented by objective indicators. However, the Journal Impact Factor is not an appropriate measure for evaluating individual publications or their authors. The scientific \"impact\" rather requires multidimensional evaluation. Indicators of potential relevance in this context may include, e.g., normalized citation rates of scientific publications, other forms of reception by the scientific community and the public, and activities in scientific organizations, research synthesis and science communication. In addition, differentiated recommendations are made for evaluating the acquisition of third-party funds and the promotion of junior scientists. CONCLUSIONS: With the explicit recommendations presented in the current position paper, the AWMF suggests enhancements to the practice of evaluating medical research performance by faculties, ministries and research funding organizations."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3205/000196"],["dc.identifier.fs","607867"],["dc.identifier.pmid","24971044"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/11706"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/58357"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.relation.issn","1612-3174"],["dc.rights","CC BY-NC-ND 3.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0"],["dc.subject.mesh","Biomedical Research"],["dc.subject.mesh","Employee Performance Appraisal"],["dc.subject.mesh","Financing, Organized"],["dc.subject.mesh","Germany"],["dc.subject.mesh","Guidelines as Topic"],["dc.subject.mesh","Peer Review"],["dc.subject.mesh","Periodicals as Topic"],["dc.title","Evaluation of medical research performance - position paper of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF)."],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["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"]]