Skip to main content

Table 3 serial evaluation of participants’ familiarity with core competency (CC) teachings and assessments (n = 28 in each group)

From: Sustained effects of faculty leadership development modules for clinical instructors of core competences education in Taiwan: a four-year explanatory case study

Questionsregular FD module participantsintervention FD module participants
I am familiar with … ..
1.delivering CC-based teachings
pre-moduleend-of-module (Δ% from pre-module)follow-up (Δ% from pre-module)pre-moduleend-of-module (Δ% from pre-module)follow-up (Δ% from pre-module)
-Teaching clinics3.5 ± 0.44.2 ± 0.3 (20%)4.3 ± 0.1 (23%)3.4 ± 0.84.6 ± 0.9 (35%)*
#1.33
4.7 ± 0.2 (38%)*
#4
-Itinerant bedside3.6 ± 0.24.3 ± 0.5 (19%)4.6 ± 0.7 (28%)3.7 ± 0.34.3 ± 0.5 (16%)4.5 ± 0.6 (22%)
-Circuit bedside3.7 ± 0.44.6 ± 0.5 (24%)4.5 ± 0.6 (22%)3.8 ± 0.24.2 ± 0.7 (11%)4.6 ± 0.3 (21%)
2. delivering CC-based assessments
 - Case-based discussion (CBD)2.9 ± 0.53.5 ± 0.3 (21%)3.7 ± 0.4 (28%)2.8 ± 0.34.2 ± 0.5 (50%)*
#2.33
4.4 ± 0.6 (57%)*
#1.75
 -mini-CEX3.3 ± 0.23.7 ± 0.6 (12%)3.8 ± 0.3 (15%)3.1 ± 0.44.4 ± 0.6 (42%)*
#1.17
4.5 ± 0.2 (45%)*
#2.33
 -OSCE2.7 ± 0.63.3 ± 0.2 (22%)3.2 ± 0.4 (19%)2.9 ± 0.24.3 ± 0.3 (48%)*
#5
4.2 ± 0.5 (45%)*
#2.5
3.designing CC-based teachings1.9 ± 0.42.8 ± 0.2 (47%)3.0 ± 0.4 (57%)2.1 ± 0.24.2 ± 0.5 (100%)**
#7
4.4 ± 0.6 (109%)**
#3.5
4.designing CC-based assessments2.2 ± .0.82.5 ± 0.3 (14%)2.5 ± 0.7 (14%)2.3 ± 0.53.9 ± 0.3 (70%)*
#4.67
4.1 ± 0.4 (78%)*
#2.29
5.leading CC-based teachings1.9 ± 0.62.2 ± 0.3 (16%)2.7 ± 0.2 (42%)2.1 ± 0.33.5 ± 0.6 (67%)*
#4.33
3.9 ± 0.2 (86%)*
#6
6.leading CC-based assessments2.1 ± 0.32.3 ± 0.4 (10%)2.2 ± 0.5 (5%)1.9 ± 0.83.8 ± 0.9 (100%)**
#3.75
3.9 ± 0.3 (105%)**
#3.4
  1. 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