Does undertaking an intercalated BSc influence first clinical year exam results at a London medical school?

Background: Intercalated BScs (iBScs) are an optional part of the medical school curriculum in many Universities. Does undertaking an iBSc influence subsequent student performance? Previous studies addressing this question have been flawed by iBSc students being highly selected. This study looks at data from medical students where there is a compulsory iBSc for non-graduates. Our aim was to see whether there was any difference in performance between students who took an iBSc before or after their third year (first clinical year) exams.Methods: A multivariable analysis was performed to compare the third year results of students at one London medical school who had or had not completed their iBSc by the start of this year (n = 276). A general linear model was applied to adjust for differences between the two groups in terms of potential confounders (age, sex, nationality and baseline performance).Results: The results of third year summative exams for 276 students were analysed (184 students with an iBSc and 92 without). Unadjusted analysis showed students who took an iBSc before their third year achieved significantly higher end of year marks than those who did not with a mean score difference of 4.4 (0.9 to 7.9 95% CI, p = 0.01). (overall mean score 238.4 "completed iBSc" students versus 234.0 "not completed", range 145.2 - 272.3 out of 300). There was however a significant difference between the two groups in their prior second year exam marks with those choosing to intercalate before their third year having higher marks. Adjusting for this, the difference in overall exam scores was no longer significant with a mean score difference of 1.4 (-4.9 to +7.7 95% CI, p = 0.66). (overall mean score 238.0 "completed iBSc" students versus 236.5 "not completed").Conclusions: Once possible confounders are controlled for (age, sex, previous academic performance) undertaking an iBSc does not influence third year exam results. One explanation for this confounding in unadjusted results is that students who do better in their second year exams are more likely to take an iBSc before their third year

The development and piloting of the graduate assessment of preparedness for practice (GAPP) questionnaire

Introduction Most new dental graduates in the UK begin their professional career following a year in dental foundation training (DFT). There has been little investigation of how prepared they feel for independent general dental practice across all four domains of the General Dental Council’s curriculum ‘Preparing for practice’. This paper describes the development of the Graduate Assessment of Preparedness for Practice (GAPP) questionnaire to address this. Methodology The GAPP questionnaire was developed and piloted using a cohort of educational supervisors (ESs) and foundation dentists (FDs). The questionnaire comprised three parts, the first of which collected respondent demographic data. The second was based on Preparing for practice and was used to develop 34 ‘competence areas’ and required a tick-box response on a 7‑category Likert Scale. The third comprised free text questions in order to further explore the subject’s responses. Results Pilot feedback was positive, the statements were felt to be clear and unambiguous, allowing them sufficient scope to state their position. The pilot study informed small cosmetic changes to the GAPP questionnaire and inclusion of a ‘comments’ column for respondents to qualify their responses. The pilot results indicated that both FDs and their ESs felt that at ten months of DFT, the FDs were very well prepared for independent general dental practice. Discussion The paper describes the important considerations relating to the reliability and validity of the GAPP questionnaire. Conclusions GAPP appears to be a suitable questionnaire to measure preparedness of new graduates with a degree of reliability and validity. The instrument is designed to be simple to complete and provides a useful analytical instrument for both self-assessment of competence and for wider use within dental education

Reliability, Validity and Responsiveness of the Syncope Functional Status Questionnaire

BACKGROUND: Patients with transient loss of consciousness (TLOC) have poor health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the disease-specific Syncope Functional Status HR-QoL Questionnaire (SFSQ), which yields two summary scales--impairment score (IS) and fear-worry score (FWS). DESIGN: Cohort-study. PARTICIPANTS: 503 adult patients presenting with TLOC. MEASUREMENTS: HR-QoL was assessed using the SFSQ and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) after presentation and 1 year later. To test reliability, score distributions, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were assessed. To assess validity, scores on the SFSQ and the SF-36 were compared. Clinical validity was tested using known-group comparison. Responsiveness was assessed by comparing changes in SFSQ scores with changes in health status and clinical condition. RESULTS: Response rate was 82% at baseline and 72% at 1-year follow-up. For all scales the full range of scores was seen. Score distributions were asymmetrical. Internal consistency was high (alpha = 0.88 for IS, 0.92 for FWS). Test-retest reliability was moderate to good for individual items and high for summary scales (inter-class correlation = 0.78 for both IS and FWS). Correlations between SFSQ scores and the SF-36 were modest. The SFSQ did not discriminate between patients differing in age and gender but did discriminate between patients differing in number of episodes and comorbid conditions. Changes in SFSQ scores were related to changes in health status and the presence of recurrences but did not vary by TLOC diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The SFSQ is an adequately reliable, valid, and responsive measure to assess HR-QoL in patients with TLO

The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community

Background: Frailty is highly prevalent in older people. Its serious adverse consequences, such as disability, are considered to be a public health problem. Therefore, disability prevention in community-dwelling frail older people is considered to be a priority for research and clinical practice in geriatric care. With regard to disability prevention, valid screening instruments are needed to identify frail older people in time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the psychometric properties of three screening instruments: the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). For validation purposes the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) was added. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 687 community-dwelling older people (>= 70 years). Agreement between instruments, internal consistency, and construct validity of instruments were evaluated and compared. Results: The response rate was 77%. Prevalence estimates of frailty ranged from 40% to 59%. The highest agreement was found between the GFI and the TFI (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). Cronbach's alpha for the GFI, the TFI and the SPQ was 0.73, 0.79 and 0.26, respectively. Scores on the three instruments correlated significantly with each other (GFI - TFI, r = 0.87; GFI - SPQ, r = 0.47; TFI - SPQ, r = 0.42) and with the GARS (GFI - GARS, r = 0.57; TFI - GARS, r = 0.61; SPQ - GARS, r = 0.46). The GFI and the TFI scores were, as expected, significantly related to age, sex, education and income. Conclusions: The GFI and the TFI showed high internal consistency and construct validity in contrast to the SPQ. Based on these findings it is not yet possible to conclude whether the GFI or the TFI should be preferred; data on the predictive values of both instruments are needed. The SPQ seems less appropriate for postal screening of frailty among community-dwelling older peopl

The Consumer Quality Index Hip Knee Questionnaire measuring patients' experiences with quality of care after a total hip or knee arthroplasty

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Dutch Consumer Quality Index Hip Knee Questionnaire (CQI Hip Knee) was used to assess patients' experiences with and evaluations of quality of care after a total hip (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to evaluate the construct validity and internal consistency reliability of this new instrument and to assess its ability to measure differences in quality of care between hospitals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Survey data of 1,675 subjects who underwent a THA or TKA were used to evaluate the psychometric properties. Exploratory factor analyses were performed and item-total correlations and inter-factor correlations were calculated to assess the construct validity of the instrument. Reliability analyses included tests of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficients). Finally, multilevel analyses were performed to assess the ability of the instrument to discriminate between hospitals in quality of care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Exploratory factor analyses indicated that the survey consisted of 21 items measuring five aspects of care (i.e. communication with nurses, communication with doctors, communication with general practitioner, communication about new medication, and pain control). Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.76 to 0.90 indicating good internal consistency. The survey's ability to discriminate between hospitals was partly supported by multilevel analysis. Two scales (i.e. communication with nurses and communication with doctors) were able to measure differences between hospitals with respect to patients' experiences with quality of care. Logistic multilevel analyses indicated that hospitals explained part of the variation between patients in receiving information.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings suggest that the CQI Hip Knee is reliable and valid for use in Dutch health care. Health care providers or health plans can use this survey to measure patients' experiences with hospital care and to identify variations in care between hospitals.</p