Kirkpatrick’s levels and education ‘evidence’

Medical Education - Tập 46 Số 1 - Trang 97-106 - 2012
Sarah Yardley1, Tim Dornan
1Keele University Medical School, Faculty of Health, Keele, UK. [email protected]

Tóm tắt

Medical Education 2012: 46: 97–106

Objectives  This study aims to review, critically, the suitability of Kirkpatrick’s levels for appraising interventions in medical education, to review empirical evidence of their application in this context, and to explore alternative ways of appraising research evidence.

Methods  The mixed methods used in this research included a narrative literature review, a critical review of theory and qualitative empirical analysis, conducted within a process of cooperative inquiry.

Results  Kirkpatrick’s levels, introduced to evaluate training in industry, involve so many implicit assumptions that they are suitable for use only in relatively simple instructional designs, short‐term endpoints and beneficiaries other than learners. Such conditions are met by perhaps one‐fifth of medical education evidence reviews. Under other conditions, the hierarchical application of the levels as a critical appraisal tool adds little value and leaves reviewers to make global judgements of the trustworthiness of the data.

Conclusions  Far from defining a reference standard critical appraisal tool, this research shows that ‘quality’ is defined as much by the purpose to which evidence is to be put as by any invariant and objectively measurable quality. Pending further research, we offer a simple way of deciding how to appraise the quality of medical education research.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1080/135762800110529

Kirkpatrick J, 2009, Kirkpatrick, Then and Now: A Strong Foundation for the Future

Kirkpatrick DL, 1967, Training and Development Handbook, 87

HeronJ ReasonP.The practice of co‐operative enquiry: research with rather than on people. In:ReasonP BradburyH eds.Handbook of Action Research: the Concise Paperback Edition. London: Sage2006;144–54.

Heron J, 1996, Co‐operative Inquiry: Research into the Human Condition, 1

Oates BJ, 2002, Cooperative enquiry: reflections on practice, Electron J Bus Res Meth, 1, 27

10.1023/A:1016300523441

Holt NL, 2003, Representation, legitimation, and autoethnography: an autoethnographic writing story, Intern J Qualitative Meth, 2, 18, 10.1177/160940690300200102

10.1080/01421590500410971

10.3109/0142159X.2010.496007

10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00661.x

Abernathy DJ, 1999, Thinking outside the evaluation box, Train Dev, 53, 18

10.1111/1468-2419.00115

10.1002/hrdq.3920070103

10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02997.x

Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) Steering Group.Guide for topic review groups on carrying out BEME systematic reviews.2003;http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/beme/writing/resources/guide_for_prospective_review_groups_pdf. [Accessed 21 October 2010.]

Wikipedia.Hierarchy of evidence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence. [Accessed 21 October 2010.]

10.1136/bmj.39253.544688.94

10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03306.x

10.3109/01421591003596600

10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02897.x

10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03523.x

10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02974.x

10.1080/13576280500289330

10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01431.x

10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01388.x

CochraneA.Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services.London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals NHS Trust1972;1–92.

Pope C, 2007, Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence, 1

10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03342.x

Guba EG, 2005, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 191

10.4135/9781849209120

10.1080/01421590500046924

10.1080/01421590600902976

10.1080/01421590701682576

10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02944.x

10.1080/01421590701881699

10.1080/01421590902883056

10.1080/01421590902889897

Wong G, 2010, Internet‐based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom, and in what circumstances, BMC Med Educ, 10

10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181e2d0c6

10.1136/bmj.c5064

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Medical Education

Tập 46 Số 1

97-106

Thông tin tác giả