The evaluation of learner outcomes in interprofessional continuing education: A literature review and an analysis of survey instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interprofessional education (IPE) is thought to be important in fostering interprofessional practice (IPP) and in optimizing patient care, but formal evaluation is lacking. AIM: To identify, through review of IPE evaluation instruments in the context of Barr/Kirkpatrick's hierarchy of IPE learner outcomes, the comprehensiveness of current evaluation strategies and gaps needing to be addressed. METHODS: MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched for work relating to IPE/IPP evaluation published between 1999 and September 2010 that contained evaluation tools. Tool items were stratified by learner outcome. Trends and gaps in tool use and scope were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty three articles were reviewed and 33 relevant tools collected. Twenty-six (78.8%) were used in only one paper each. Five hundred and thirty eight relevant items were identified, with 68.0% assessing changes in perceptions of IPE/IPP. Fewer items were found to assess learner reactions (20.6%), changes in behaviour (9.7%), changes in knowledge (1.3%) and organizational practice (0.004%). No items addressed benefits to patients; most were subjective and could not be used to assess such higher level outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: No gold-standard tool has been agreed upon in the literature, and none fully addresses all IPE learner outcomes. Objective measures of higher level outcomes are necessary to ensure comprehensive evaluation of IPE/IPP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".