Guest speakers lectures, oral presentations, clinical case presentations

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 95-142
Author(s):  
J. M. Casamitjana Ferrandiz ◽  
Cédric Barrey ◽  
Wafa Skalli ◽  
Guy Matgé ◽  
Ufuk Aydinli ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Geethu E. Punnen ◽  
Shyamkumar N. Keshava ◽  
Sridhar Gibikote

AbstractClinical case presentation is part of daily routine for doctors to communicate with each other to facilitate learning, and ultimately patient management. Hence, the art of good clinical case presentation is a skill that needs to be mastered. Case presentations are a part of most undergraduate and postgraduate training programs aimed at nurturing oratory and presentation design skills. This article is an attempt at providing a trainee in radiology a guideline to good case presentation skills.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Jennifer S Byrd ◽  
Michael J Peeters

Objective: There is a paucity of validation evidence for assessing clinical case-presentations by Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) students.  Within Kane’s Framework for Validation, evidence for inferences of scoring and generalization should be generated first.  Thus, our objectives were to characterize and improve scoring, as well as build initial generalization evidence, in order to provide validation evidence for performance-based assessment of clinical case-presentations. Design: Third-year PharmD students worked up patient-cases from a local hospital.  Students orally presented and defended their therapeutic care-plan to pharmacist preceptors (evaluators) and fellow students.  Evaluators scored each presentation using an 11-item instrument with a 6-point rating-scale.  In addition, evaluators scored a global-item with a 4-point rating-scale.  Rasch Measurement was used for scoring analysis, while Generalizability Theory was used for generalization analysis. Findings: Thirty students each presented five cases that were evaluated by 15 preceptors using an 11-item instrument.  Using Rasch Measurement, the 11-item instrument’s 6-point rating-scale did not work; it only worked once collapsed to a 4-point rating-scale.  This revised 11-item instrument also showed redundancy.  Alternatively, the global-item performed reasonably on its own.  Using multivariate Generalizability Theory, the g-coefficient (reliability) for the series of five case-presentations was 0.76 with the 11-item instrument, and 0.78 with the global-item.  Reliability was largely dependent on multiple case-presentations and, to a lesser extent, the number of evaluators per case-presentation.  Conclusions: Our pilot results confirm that scoring should be simple (scale and instrument).  More specifically, the longer 11-item instrument measured but had redundancy, whereas the single global-item provided measurement over multiple case-presentations.  Further, acceptable reliability can be balanced between more/fewer case-presentations and using more/fewer evaluators.


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
BinodK Patro ◽  
Jeyashree Kathiresan

1997 ◽  
Vol 72 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. S37-S39 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Bordage ◽  
K J Connell ◽  
R W Chang ◽  
M R Gecht ◽  
J M Sinacore

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document