-
Challenges and potential improvements in the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019) derived through meta-evaluation: a cross-sectional study
-
Yoonjung Lee
 , Min-jung Lee, Junmoo Ahn, Chungwon Ha, Ye Ji Kang, Cheol Woong Jung, Dong-Mi Yoo, Jihye Yu, Seung-Hee Lee
-
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2024;21:8. Published online April 2, 2024
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.8
-
-
1,583
View
-
313
Download
-
1
Web of Science
-
1
Crossref
-
 Abstract
 PDF Supplementary Material
- Purpose
This study aimed to identify challenges and potential improvements in Korea's medical education accreditation process according to the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019). Meta-evaluation was conducted to survey the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders, including self-assessment committee members, site visit committee members, administrative staff, and medical school professors.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted using surveys sent to 40 medical schools. The 332 participants included self-assessment committee members, site visit team members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. The t-test, one-way analysis of variance and the chi-square test were used to analyze and compare opinions on medical education accreditation between the categories of participants.
Results
Site visit committee members placed greater importance on the necessity of accreditation than faculty members. A shared positive view on accreditation’s role in improving educational quality was seen among self-evaluation committee members and professors. Administrative staff highly regarded the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation’s reliability and objectivity, unlike the self-evaluation committee members. Site visit committee members positively perceived the clarity of accreditation standards, differing from self-assessment committee members. Administrative staff were most optimistic about implementing standards. However, the accreditation process encountered challenges, especially in duplicating content and preparing self-evaluation reports. Finally, perceptions regarding the accuracy of final site visit reports varied significantly between the self-evaluation committee members and the site visit committee members.
Conclusion
This study revealed diverse views on medical education accreditation, highlighting the need for improved communication, expectation alignment, and stakeholder collaboration to refine the accreditation process and quality.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by  - The new placement of 2,000 entrants at Korean medical schools in
2025: is the government’s policy evidence-based?
Sun Huh
The Ewha Medical Journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
-
Inter-rater reliability and content validity of the measurement tool for portfolio assessments used in the Introduction to Clinical Medicine course at Ewha Womans University College of Medicine: a methodological study
-
Dong-Mi Yoo, Jae Jin Han
-
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2024;21:39. Published online December 10, 2024
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.39
-
-
Abstract
PDFSupplementary Material
- Purpose
This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of a measurement tool for portfolio assessments in medical education. Specifically, it investigated scoring consistency among raters and assessment criteria appropriateness according to an expert panel.
Methods
A cross-sectional observational study was conducted from September to December 2018 for the Introduction to Clinical Medicine course at the Ewha Womans University College of Medicine. Data were collected for 5 randomly selected portfolios scored by a gold-standard rater and 6 trained raters. An expert panel assessed the validity of 12 assessment items using the content validity index (CVI). Statistical analysis included Pearson correlation coefficients for rater alignment, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-rater reliability, and the CVI for item-level validity.
Results
Rater 1 had the highest Pearson correlation (0.8916) with the gold-standard rater, while Rater 5 had the lowest (0.4203). The ICC for all raters was 0.3821, improving to 0.4415 after excluding Raters 1 and 5, indicating a 15.6% reliability increase. All assessment items met the CVI threshold of ≥0.75, with some achieving a perfect score (CVI=1.0). However, items like “sources” and “level and degree of performance” showed lower validity (CVI=0.72).
Conclusion
The present measurement tool for portfolio assessments demonstrated moderate reliability and strong validity, supporting its use as a credible tool. For a more reliable portfolio assessment, more faculty training is needed.
|
KHPLEI
