View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Concept mapping assessment in medical education: a comparison of two scoring systems.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Concept mapping assessment in medical education: a comparison of two scoring systems.
Authors: West, Daniel C (AUTHOR), Park, Jeanny K (AUTHOR), Pomeroy, J Richard (AUTHOR), Sandoval, Jonathan (AUTHOR)
Source: Medical Education. Sep2002, Vol. 36 Issue 9, p820-826. 7p. 1 Chart, 1 Map.
Subjects: Medical education, Test scoring
Abstract: Background Concept mapping has the potential to measure important aspects of a student's evolving knowledge framework in a way that conventional examinations cannot. This is important because development of an elaborate and well-structured knowledge framework is a critical step toward becoming an expert in a particular field. Little is known about the best way to score concept maps in the setting of medical education. Therefore, as a preliminary step in addressing this question, we compared two different scoring systems for validity: a structural method based on the organization of a map's hierarchical structure and a relational method based, not on structure, but on the quality of each individual map component. Methods A total of 21 paediatric resident doctors completed concept map training, drew a preinstruction concept map about ‘seizures’, completed a seizure education course, and then drew a postinstruction seizure map. Two raters using both structural and relational methods scored each map. Results Structural scores increased significantly after instruction and were higher in more experienced residents, but relational scores were not significantly different. Interrater scoring reliability for both methods ranged from moderate to strong, but was greater using the relational scoring method. Conclusions These data suggest that scoring systems for evaluating concept maps in postgraduate medical education may need to account for structural features of maps, if scores are to reflect changes in the developing knowledge frameworks of resident doctors. More research to further evaluate reliability and validity is critical prior to any future use of concept mapping assessment in medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 7406166
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Concept mapping assessment in medical education: a comparison of two scoring systems.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22West%2C+Daniel+C%22">West, Daniel C</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Park%2C+Jeanny+K%22">Park, Jeanny K</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pomeroy%2C+J+Richard%22">Pomeroy, J Richard</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sandoval%2C+Jonathan%22">Sandoval, Jonathan</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink>. Sep2002, Vol. 36 Issue 9, p820-826. 7p. 1 Chart, 1 Map.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+education%22">Medical education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+scoring%22">Test scoring</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background Concept mapping has the potential to measure important aspects of a student's evolving knowledge framework in a way that conventional examinations cannot. This is important because development of an elaborate and well-structured knowledge framework is a critical step toward becoming an expert in a particular field. Little is known about the best way to score concept maps in the setting of medical education. Therefore, as a preliminary step in addressing this question, we compared two different scoring systems for validity: a structural method based on the organization of a map's hierarchical structure and a relational method based, not on structure, but on the quality of each individual map component. Methods A total of 21 paediatric resident doctors completed concept map training, drew a preinstruction concept map about ‘seizures’, completed a seizure education course, and then drew a postinstruction seizure map. Two raters using both structural and relational methods scored each map. Results Structural scores increased significantly after instruction and were higher in more experienced residents, but relational scores were not significantly different. Interrater scoring reliability for both methods ranged from moderate to strong, but was greater using the relational scoring method. Conclusions These data suggest that scoring systems for evaluating concept maps in postgraduate medical education may need to account for structural features of maps, if scores are to reflect changes in the developing knowledge frameworks of resident doctors. More research to further evaluate reliability and validity is critical prior to any future use of concept mapping assessment in medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=7406166
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01292.x
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 820
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Medical education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test scoring
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Concept mapping assessment in medical education: a comparison of two scoring systems.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: West, Daniel C
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Park, Jeanny K
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pomeroy, J Richard
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sandoval, Jonathan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Text: Sep2002
              Type: published
              Y: 2002
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 03080110
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 36
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Medical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1