Table 3.
serial evaluation of participants’ familiarity with core competency (CC) teachings and assessments (n = 28 in each group)
| Questions | regular FD module participants | intervention FD module participants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I am familiar with … .. 1.delivering CC-based teachings |
pre-module | end-of-module (Δ% from pre-module) | follow-up (Δ% from pre-module) | pre-module | end-of-module (Δ% from pre-module) | follow-up (Δ% from pre-module) |
| -Teaching clinics | 3.5 ± 0.4 | 4.2 ± 0.3 (20%) | 4.3 ± 0.1 (23%) | 3.4 ± 0.8 |
4.6 ± 0.9 (35%)* #1.33 |
4.7 ± 0.2 (38%)* #4 |
| -Itinerant bedside | 3.6 ± 0.2 | 4.3 ± 0.5 (19%) | 4.6 ± 0.7 (28%) | 3.7 ± 0.3 | 4.3 ± 0.5 (16%) | 4.5 ± 0.6 (22%) |
| -Circuit bedside | 3.7 ± 0.4 | 4.6 ± 0.5 (24%) | 4.5 ± 0.6 (22%) | 3.8 ± 0.2 | 4.2 ± 0.7 (11%) | 4.6 ± 0.3 (21%) |
| 2. delivering CC-based assessments | ||||||
| - Case-based discussion (CBD) | 2.9 ± 0.5 | 3.5 ± 0.3 (21%) | 3.7 ± 0.4 (28%) | 2.8 ± 0.3 |
4.2 ± 0.5 (50%)* #2.33 |
4.4 ± 0.6 (57%)* #1.75 |
| -mini-CEX | 3.3 ± 0.2 | 3.7 ± 0.6 (12%) | 3.8 ± 0.3 (15%) | 3.1 ± 0.4 |
4.4 ± 0.6 (42%)* #1.17 |
4.5 ± 0.2 (45%)* #2.33 |
| -OSCE | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 3.3 ± 0.2 (22%) | 3.2 ± 0.4 (19%) | 2.9 ± 0.2 |
4.3 ± 0.3 (48%)* #5 |
4.2 ± 0.5 (45%)* #2.5 |
| 3.designing CC-based teachings | 1.9 ± 0.4 | 2.8 ± 0.2 (47%) | 3.0 ± 0.4 (57%) | 2.1 ± 0.2 |
4.2 ± 0.5 (100%)** #7 |
4.4 ± 0.6 (109%)** #3.5 |
| 4.designing CC-based assessments | 2.2 ± .0.8 | 2.5 ± 0.3 (14%) | 2.5 ± 0.7 (14%) | 2.3 ± 0.5 |
3.9 ± 0.3 (70%)* #4.67 |
4.1 ± 0.4 (78%)* #2.29 |
| 5.leading CC-based teachings | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 2.2 ± 0.3 (16%) | 2.7 ± 0.2 (42%) | 2.1 ± 0.3 |
3.5 ± 0.6 (67%)* #4.33 |
3.9 ± 0.2 (86%)* #6 |
| 6.leading CC-based assessments | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 2.3 ± 0.4 (10%) | 2.2 ± 0.5 (5%) | 1.9 ± 0.8 |
3.8 ± 0.9 (100%)** #3.75 |
3.9 ± 0.3 (105%)** #3.4 |
Data were expressed as mean ± SD; agreement to questions are rated by 5-point Likert scale; 5 = very agree;3 = neutral; 1 = very not agree; mini-CEX mini-clinical evaluation exercise; OSCE objective structural clinical examination; *, p < 0.05 vs. corresponding data of regular FD group that analyzed using student t tests; Comparison among data of multiple time points were analyzed with ANOVA test; # t-test’s effect size for compared data between groups that with significance on t test