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...
http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=O119031806
2019년
-
1396-5883
1600-0579
SCOPUS;SCIE
학술저널
389-404 [※수록면이 p5 이하이면, Review, Columns, Editor's Note, Abstract 등일 경우가 있습니다.]
0
상세조회0
다운로드다국어 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.
Perceptions of foundation dentists on minor oral surgery teaching in dental foundation training
Graduate mobility: Where do dentistry graduates choose to practise?