Skip to main content

Table 5 The following examination methods are meaningful

From: Three-year emergency medicine training program in The Netherlands: first evaluation from the residents’ perspective

 

Completely disagree (%)

Disagree (%)

Neutral (%)

Agree (%)

Completely agree (%)

Short clinical assessment*

1 (1.0)

4 (3.8)

23 (21.9)

65 (61.9)

12 (11.4)

360 Degree assessment**

3 (2.9)

13 (12.4)

20 (19.0)

58 (55.2)

11 (10.5)

OSATS***

0 (0)

4 (3.8)

13 (12.4)

79 (75.2)

9 (8.6)

CATs****

1 (1.0)

15 (14.3)

26 (24.8)

59 (56.2)

4 (3.8)

Oral presentations

0 (0)

7 (6.7)

23 (21.9)

72 (68.6)

3 (2.9)

Progress test

3 (2.9)

13 (12.4)

29 (27.6)

52 (49.5)

8 (7.6)

Personal training plan

1 (1.0)

0 (0)

48 (46.2)

37 (35.6)

4 (3.8)

Self-reflection report

9 (8.6)

25 (23.8)

32 (30.5)

35 (33.3)

4 (3.8)

Progress and assessment interview*****

0 (0)

3 (2.9)

12 (11.4)

64 (61)

26 (24.8)

  1. *Assessment of soft skills and knowledge; **combined feedback from patient, nurse, other residents, EP and other specialist; ***on-site assessment and training or assessment of technical skills; ****critical appraisal of a topic; *****interview with program director. Numbers in bold represent the majority of the group.