Developing resident learning profiles: Do scientific evidence epistemology beliefs, EBM self-efficacy beliefs and EBM skills matter?

摘要

This study investigated resident scientific evidence epistemology beliefs, evidence based medicine (EBM) self-efficacy beliefs, and EBM skills. A convenience sample of fifty-one residents located in six U.S. based residency programs completed an online instrument. Hofer's epistemology survey questionnaire was modified to test responses based on four types of scientific evidence encountered in medical practice (Clinical Trial Phase 1, Clinical Trial Phase 3, Meta-analysis and Qualitative).; It was hypothesized that epistemology beliefs would differ based on the type of scientific evidence considered. A principal components analysis produced a two factor solution that was significant across type of scientific evidence suggesting that when evaluating epistemology beliefs context does matter. Factor 1 is related to the certainty of research methods and the certainty of medical conclusions and factor 2 denotes medical justification. For each type of scientific evidence, both factors differed on questions comprising the factor structure with significant differences found for the factor 1 and 2 questions. A justification belief case problem using checklist format was triangulated with the survey results, and as predicted the survey and checklist justification z scores indicated no significant differences, and two new justification themes emerged. Modified versions of Finney and Schraw's statistical self-efficacy and skill instruments produced expected significant EBM score correlations with unexpected results indicating that the number of EBM and statistics courses are not significant for EBM self-efficacy and skill scores.; The study results were applied to the construction of a learning profile that provided residents belief and skill feedback specific to individual learning needs. The learning profile design incorporated core values related to 'Believer' populations that focus on art, harmony, tact and diplomacy. Future research recommendations include testing context and case problems in other domains with larger sample sizes, offering belief feedback profiles to understand how individuals value and apply belief knowledge, and conducting belief and skill testing using online access.