Questioning the questions: Methods used by medical schools to review internal assessment items.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Objective: Review of assessment questions to ensure quality is critical to properly assess student performance. The purpose of this study was to identify processes used by medical schools to review questions used in internal assessments. Methods: The authors recruited professionals involved with the writing and/or review of questions for their medical school's internal assessments to participate in this study. The survey was administered electronically via an anonymous link, and participation was solicited through the DR-ED listserv, an electronic discussion group for medical educators. Responses were collected over a two-week period, and one reminder was sent to increase the response rate. The instrument was comprised of one demographic question, two closed-ended questions, and two open-ended questions. Results: Thirty-nine respondents completed the survey in which 22 provided the name of their institution/medical school. Of those who self-identified, no two respondents appeared to be from the same institution, and participants represented institutions from across the United States with two from other countries. The majority (n=32, 82%) of respondents indicated they had a process to review student assessment questions. Most participants reported that faculty and course/block directors had responsibility for review of assessment questions, while some indicated they had a committee or group of faculty who was responsible for review. Most focused equally on content/accuracy, formatting, and grammar as reported. Over 81% (n=22) of respondents indicated they used NBME resources to guide review, and less than 19% (n=5) utilized internally developed writing guides. Conclusions: Results of this study identified that medical schools are using a wide range of item review strategies and use a variety of tools to guide their review. These results will give insight to other medical schools who do not have processes in place to review assessment questions or who are looking to expand upon current procedures.

Elevation through reflection: closing the circle to improve librarianship.

Reflective practice is a strategy promoted as a way to improve professional performance and to develop expertise. Intentional reflection on work situations can lead to improved understanding of a specific situation, identify strategies for similar situations in the future, and uncover assumptions that hinder service to patrons. Research has identified lack of knowledge to be a barrier to health sciences librarians engaging in reflective practice. This article introduces the use of intentional reflection at work: what it is, how it helps, and how it can be applied in librarianship. It also provides practical advice on how to choose a format, how to use a model to guide reflection, and how to incorporate it into work.

Reflective practice and health sciences librarians: engagement, benefits, and barriers.

OBJECTIVE: Reflective practice is common in nursing and other professions. In the published literature, there is very little about librarians' use of reflective practice and no studies of health librarians' use of reflective practice. This study examined the use of reflective practice among health sciences librarians, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers to use. METHODS: This cross-sectional study replicated the 2014 study by Greenall and Sen, using a version of their questionnaire. The research population in this study was health sciences librarians who were members of the MEDLIB-L email discussion list, Medical Library Association (MLA) chapter email discussion lists, and/or MLA section email discussion lists. RESULTS: There were 106 librarians who completed the questionnaire, ranging from those new to the profession through midcareer to longtime librarians. While a high percentage of respondents considered themselves to be reflective practitioners (77%), a larger percentage (87%) reported that they consciously spent time reflecting. Respondents selected a wide variety of benefits of reflective practice, while barriers tended to center on lack of time, knowledge, skills, or experience. CONCLUSION: The diversity of benefits that respondents selected suggests that reflective practice can play an important positive role in librarians' professional development. Reported barriers to reflective practice suggest that there is a need for educational opportunities to develop skills.

Issues surrounding the administration of a credit course for medical students: survey of US academic health sciences librarians.

OBJECTIVES: For librarians developing a credit course for medical students, the process often involves trial and error. This project identified issues surrounding the administration of a credit course, so that librarians nationally can rely more upon shared knowledge of common practices and less upon trial and error. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the education services librarian at each medical school listed in the 2000 AAMC Data Book. A second questionnaire was sent to those librarians who did not return the first one. RESULTS: Of the 125 librarians surveyed, 82 returned the questionnaire. Of those 82, only 11 offered a credit course for medical students, though 19 more were in the process of developing one. Data were gathered on the following aspects of course administration: credit course offerings, course listing, information learned to administer the course, costs associated with the course, relationships with other departments on campus, preparation for teaching and grading, and evaluation of the course. CONCLUSIONS: Because of small number of respondents offering a credit course and institutional variations, making generalizations about issues surrounding the administration of a credit course is difficult. The article closes with a list of recommendations for librarians planning to develop a course.