RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      Instruments to measure the ability to self‐reflect: A systematic review of evidence from workplace and educational settings including health care

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=O119031806

      • 저자
      • 발행기관
      • 학술지명
      • 권호사항
      • 발행연도

        2019년

      • 작성언어

        -

      • Print ISSN

        1396-5883

      • Online ISSN

        1600-0579

      • 등재정보

        SCOPUS;SCIE

      • 자료형태

        학술저널

      • 수록면

        389-404   [※수록면이 p5 이하이면, Review, Columns, Editor's Note, Abstract 등일 경우가 있습니다.]

      • 구독기관
        • 전북대학교 중앙도서관  
        • 성균관대학교 중앙학술정보관  
        • 부산대학교 중앙도서관  
        • 전남대학교 중앙도서관  
        • 제주대학교 중앙도서관  
        • 중앙대학교 서울캠퍼스 중앙도서관  
        • 인천대학교 학산도서관  
        • 숙명여자대학교 중앙도서관  
        • 서강대학교 로욜라중앙도서관  
        • 충남대학교 중앙도서관  
        • 한양대학교 백남학술정보관  
        • 이화여자대학교 중앙도서관  
        • 고려대학교 도서관  
      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Self‐reflection has become recognised as a core skill in dental education, although the ability to self‐reflect is valued and measured within several professions. This review appraises the evidence for instruments available to measure the self‐r...

      Self‐reflection has become recognised as a core skill in dental education, although the ability to self‐reflect is valued and measured within several professions. This review appraises the evidence for instruments available to measure the self‐reflective ability of adults studying or working within any setting, not just health care.
      A systematic review was conducted of 20 electronic databases (including Medline, ERIC, CINAHL and Business Source Complete) from 1975 to 2017, supplemented by citation searches. Data were extracted from each study and the studies graded against quality indicators by at least two independent reviewers, using a coding sheet. Reviewers completed a utility analysis of the assessment instruments described within included studies, appraising their reported reliability, validity, educational impact, acceptability and cost.
      A total of 131 studies met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen were judged to provide higher quality evidence for the review and three broad types of instrument were identified, namely: rubrics (or scoring guides), self‐reported scales and observed behaviour.
      Three types of instrument were identified to assess the ability to self‐reflect. It was not possible to recommend a single most effective instrument due to under reporting of the criteria necessary for a full utility analysis of each. The use of more than one instrument may therefore be appropriate dependent on the acceptability to the faculty, assessor, student and cost. Future research should report on the utility of assessment instruments and provide guidance on what constitutes thresholds of acceptable or unacceptable ability to self‐reflect, and how this should be managed.

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼