2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Challenges and potential improvements in the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019) derived through meta-evaluation: a cross-sectional study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          This study aimed to identify challenges and potential improvements in Korea's medical education accreditation process according to the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019). Meta-evaluation was conducted to survey the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders, including self-assessment committee members, site visit committee members, administrative staff, and medical school professors.

          Methods

          A cross-sectional study was conducted using surveys sent to 40 medical schools. The 332 participants included self-assessment committee members, site visit team members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. The t-test, one-way analysis of variance and the chi-square test were used to analyze and compare opinions on medical education accreditation between the categories of participants.

          Results

          Site visit committee members placed greater importance on the necessity of accreditation than faculty members. A shared positive view on accreditation’s role in improving educational quality was seen among self-evaluation committee members and professors. Administrative staff highly regarded the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation’s reliability and objectivity, unlike the self-evaluation committee members. Site visit committee members positively perceived the clarity of accreditation standards, differing from self-assessment committee members. Administrative staff were most optimistic about implementing standards. However, the accreditation process encountered challenges, especially in duplicating content and preparing self-evaluation reports. Finally, perceptions regarding the accuracy of final site visit reports varied significantly between the self-evaluation committee members and the site visit committee members.

          Conclusion

          This study revealed diverse views on medical education accreditation, highlighting the need for improved communication, expectation alignment, and stakeholder collaboration to refine the accreditation process and quality.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences

          G*Power (Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996) was designed as a general stand-alone power analysis program for statistical tests commonly used in social and behavioral research. G*Power 3 is a major extension of, and improvement over, the previous versions. It runs on widely used computer platforms (i.e., Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Mac OS X 10.4) and covers many different statistical tests of the t, F, and chi2 test families. In addition, it includes power analyses for z tests and some exact tests. G*Power 3 provides improved effect size calculators and graphic options, supports both distribution-based and design-based input modes, and offers all types of power analyses in which users might be interested. Like its predecessors, G*Power 3 is free.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Meaningfulness of Effect Sizes in Psychological Research: Differences Between Sub-Disciplines and the Impact of Potential Biases

            Effect sizes are the currency of psychological research. They quantify the results of a study to answer the research question and are used to calculate statistical power. The interpretation of effect sizes—when is an effect small, medium, or large?—has been guided by the recommendations Jacob Cohen gave in his pioneering writings starting in 1962: Either compare an effect with the effects found in past research or use certain conventional benchmarks. The present analysis shows that neither of these recommendations is currently applicable. From past publications without pre-registration, 900 effects were randomly drawn and compared with 93 effects from publications with pre-registration, revealing a large difference: Effects from the former (median r = 0.36) were much larger than effects from the latter (median r = 0.16). That is, certain biases, such as publication bias or questionable research practices, have caused a dramatic inflation in published effects, making it difficult to compare an actual effect with the real population effects (as these are unknown). In addition, there were very large differences in the mean effects between psychological sub-disciplines and between different study designs, making it impossible to apply any global benchmarks. Many more pre-registered studies are needed in the future to derive a reliable picture of real population effects.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Health sector accreditation research: a systematic review.

              The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze research into accreditation and accreditation processes. A multi-method, systematic review of the accreditation literature was conducted from March to May 2007. The search identified articles researching accreditation. Discussion or commentary pieces were excluded. From the initial identification of over 3000 abstracts, 66 studies that met the search criteria by empirically examining accreditation were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The 66 studies were retrieved and analyzed. The results, examining the impact or effectiveness of accreditation, were classified into 10 categories: professions' attitudes to accreditation, promote change, organizational impact, financial impact, quality measures, program assessment, consumer views or patient satisfaction, public disclosure, professional development and surveyor issues. The analysis reveals a complex picture. In two categories consistent findings were recorded: promote change and professional development. Inconsistent findings were identified in five categories: professions' attitudes to accreditation, organizational impact, financial impact, quality measures and program assessment. The remaining three categories-consumer views or patient satisfaction, public disclosure and surveyor issues-did not have sufficient studies to draw any conclusion. The search identified a number of national health care accreditation organizations engaged in research activities. The health care accreditation industry appears to be purposefully moving towards constructing the evidence to ground our understanding of accreditation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                J Educ Eval Health Prof
                J Educ Eval Health Prof
                JEEHP
                Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions
                Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute
                1975-5937
                2024
                2 April 2024
                : 21
                : 8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medical Education, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [2 ]Department of Medical Education, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [3 ]Department of Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [4 ]Departments of Medical Education, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
                [5 ]Department of Medical Education, Ajou University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                Hallym University, Korea
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding email: lshcho@ 123456snu.ac.kr
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4164-625X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6372-2201
                http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9289-8052
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4084-2002
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1711-2394
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0776-8202
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9344-6807
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8039-6580
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8672-5253
                Article
                jeehp-21-08
                10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.8
                11108703
                38561017
                3fc51f5e-3207-4815-87f4-8d14c635163b
                © 2024 Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 February 2024
                : 24 March 2024
                Categories
                Research Article

                Assessment, Evaluation & Research methods
                meta-evaluation,medical education accreditation,quality improvement,cross-sectional study

                Comments

                Comment on this article