Anders, Sven

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","711"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","7"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Medical Education"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","720"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","50"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Andresen, Jil C."],["dc.contributor.author","Meyer, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Strobel, Lisa"],["dc.contributor.author","Koziolek, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Wolfram"],["dc.contributor.author","Brown, Jamie"],["dc.contributor.author","Anders, Sven"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T10:12:24Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T10:12:24Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.description.abstract","ContextClinical reasoning is an essential skill, the foundations of which should be acquired during undergraduate medical education. Student performance in clinical reasoning can be assessed using key feature examinations. However, within a paradigm of test-enhanced learning, such examinations may also be used to enhance long-term retention ofprocedural knowledge relevant to clinical reasoning. ObjectivesThis study tested the hypothesis that repeated testing with key feature questions is more effective than repeated case-based learning in fostering clinical reasoning. MethodsIn this randomised crossover trial, Year4 medical students attended 10 weekly computer-based seminars during which patient case histories covering general medical conditions were displayed. The presentation format was switched between groups every week. In the control condition, students studied long case narratives. The intervention condition used the same content but augmented case presentation with a sequence of key feature questions. Using a within-subjects design, student performance on intervention and control items was assessed at 13weeks (exit examination) and 9months (retention test) after the first day of term. ResultsA total of 87 of 124 eligible students provided complete data for the longitudinal analysis (response rate: 70.2%). In the retention test, meanstandard deviation student scores on intervention items were significantly higher than those on control items (56.025.8% versus 48.8 +/- 24.7%; p<0.001). The results remained unchanged after accounting for exposure time in a linear regression analysis that also adjusted for sex and general student performance levels. ConclusionsThis is the first study to demonstrate an effect of test-enhanced learning on clinical reasoning as assessed with key feature questions. In this randomised trial, repeated testing was more effective than repeated case-based learning alone. Curricular implementation of longitudinal key feature testing may considerably enhance student learning outcomes in relevant aspects of clinical medicine."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1111/medu.13069"],["dc.identifier.isi","000378731000006"],["dc.identifier.pmid","27295475"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/40228"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Wiley-blackwell"],["dc.relation.issn","1365-2923"],["dc.relation.issn","0308-0110"],["dc.title","Test-enhanced learning of clinical reasoning: a crossover randomised trial"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","760"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","9"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Medical Teacher"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","766"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","35"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Brown, Jamie"],["dc.contributor.author","Wieland, Anna"],["dc.contributor.author","Anders, Sven"],["dc.contributor.author","Harendza, Sigrid"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:29:38Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:29:38Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Financial incentives are effective in moderating physician and patient behaviour, but they have not been studied in the context of medical education. Aim: This study assessed whether financial incentives can motivate students to acquire electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation skills. Methods: Students enrolled for a cardio-respiratory teaching module (n = 121) were randomised to an intervention (financial incentive) or a control (book voucher raffle) condition. All students took three validated exams of ECG interpretation skills (at module entry, module exit and seven weeks later). Only the exit exam was financially incentivised in the intervention group. The primary outcome was the proportion of students who correctly identified >= 60% of clinically important diagnoses in the exit exam. Results: Financial incentives more than doubled the odds of correctly identifying >= 60% of diagnoses in the exit exam (adjusted odds ratio 2.44, 95% confidence interval 1.05-5.67) and significantly increased student learning time. However, there was no significant effect on performance levels in the retention exam. Conclusions: Financial incentives increase reported learning time and examination results in the short-term. The lack of a sustained effect on performance suggests that financial incentives may foster a superficial or strategic rather than a deep approach to learning."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3109/0142159X.2013.801942"],["dc.identifier.isi","000324770200016"],["dc.identifier.pmid","23808527"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/31090"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Informa Healthcare"],["dc.relation.issn","0142-159X"],["dc.title","Should we pay the student? A randomised trial of financial incentives in medical education"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]