Matches in UGent Biblio for { <https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/2095093#aggregation> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 36 of
36
with 100 items per page.
- aggregation classification "A1".
- aggregation creator B406354.
- aggregation creator B406355.
- aggregation creator B406356.
- aggregation creator person.
- aggregation creator person.
- aggregation creator person.
- aggregation creator person.
- aggregation creator person.
- aggregation date "2012".
- aggregation format "application/pdf".
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.bibtex.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.csv.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.dc.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.didl.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.doc.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.json.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.mets.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.mods.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.rdf.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.ris.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.txt.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.xls.
- aggregation hasFormat 2095093.yaml.
- aggregation isPartOf urn:issn:1472-6920.
- aggregation language "eng".
- aggregation rights "I have retained and own the full copyright for this publication".
- aggregation subject "Medicine and Health Sciences".
- aggregation title "Using video-cases to assess student reflection: development and validation of an instrument".
- aggregation abstract "Background: Reflection is a meta-cognitive process, characterized by: 1. Awareness of self and the situation; 2. Critical analysis and understanding of both self and the situation; 3. Development of new perspectives to inform future actions. Assessors can only access reflections indirectly through learners’ verbal and/or written expressions. Being privy to the situation that triggered reflection could place reflective materials into context. Video-cases make that possible and, coupled with a scoring rubric, offer a reliable way of assessing reflection. Methods: Fourth and fifth year undergraduate medical students were shown two interactive video-cases and asked to reflect on this experience, guided by six standard questions. The quality of students’ reflections were scored using a specially developed Student Assessment of Reflection Scoring rubric (StARS®). Reflection scores were analyzed concerning interrater reliability and ability to discriminate between students. Further, the intra-rater reliability and case specificity were estimated by means of a generalizability study with rating and case scenario as facets. Results: Reflection scores of 270 students ranged widely and interrater reliability was acceptable (Krippendorff’s alpha = 0.88). The generalizability study suggested 3 or 4 cases were needed to obtain reliable ratings from 4th year students and ≥ 6 cases from 5th year students. Conclusion : Use of StARS® to assess student reflections triggered by standardized video-cases had acceptable discriminative ability and reliability. We offer this practical method for assessing reflection summatively, and providing formative feedback in training situations.".
- aggregation authorList BK720351.
- aggregation volume "12".
- aggregation aggregates 2095800.
- aggregation isDescribedBy 2095093.
- aggregation similarTo 1472-6920-12-22.
- aggregation similarTo LU-2095093.