Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0491-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Department of Defense, or the US government.
PhD-trained researchers working in health professions education (HPE) regularly engage in one-on-one, or one-on-few, scholarly mentorship activities. While this work is often a formal expectation of these scientists’ roles, rarely is there formal institutional acknowledgement of this mentorship. In fact, there are few official means through which a research scientist can document the frequency or quality of the scholarly mentorship they provide.
The STHPE assessment tool has appropriate psychometric properties and evidence supporting acceptability. It can be used to document areas of strength and areas for improvement for research scientists engaged in HPE-related scholarly mentorship.
At present, the STHPE assessment tool is the only formally developed tool for which there is evidence of validity for use by PhD-trained researchers working in HPE to collect feedback on their scholarly mentorship skills. The STPHE has been used in promotion and tenure packages to document effectiveness and quality of scholarly mentorship.
van der Vleuten CPM. Medical education research: a vibrant community of research and education practice. Med Educ. 2014;48:761–7. CrossRef
Varpio L, Gruppen L, Hu W, et al. Working definitions of the roles and an organizational structure in health professions education scholarship: initiating an international conversation. Acad Med. 2017;92:205–8. CrossRef
Feldman MD, Arean PA, Marshall SJ, Lovett M, O’Sullivan P. Does mentoring matter: results from a survey of faculty mentees at a large health sciences university. Med Educ Online. 2010;15:5063. CrossRef
Lovell B. What do we know about coaching in medical education? A literature review. Med Educ. 2018;52:376–90. CrossRef
Varpio L, St-Onge C, Young M. Academic promotion packages: crafting connotative frames. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5:354–7. CrossRef
DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2017.
Messick S. Validity. In: Linn RL, editor. Educational measurement. New York: Macmillan; 1989. pp. 13–103.
Messick S. Meaning and values in test validation: the science and ethics of assessment. Educ Res. 1989;18:5–11. CrossRef
van der Vleuten CPM. The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ. 1996;1:41–67. CrossRef
Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval. 2006;27:237–46. CrossRef
Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1970;1:185–216. CrossRef
Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning; 2006.
- Development and validation of a health profession education-focused scholarly mentorship assessment tool
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum