Faculty Characteristics Research Articles

Physician characteristics associated with proficiency in feedback skills

Providing and eliciting high-quality feedback is valuable in medical education. Medical learners' attainment of clinical competence and professional growth can be facilitated by reliable feedback. This study's primary objective was to identify characteristics that are associated with physician teachers' proficiency with feedback. A cohort of 363 physicians, who were either past participants of the Johns Hopkins Faculty Development Program or members of a comparison group, were surveyed by mail in July 2002. Survey questions focused on personal characteristics, professional characteristics, teaching activities, self-assessed teaching proficiencies and behaviors, and scholarly activity. The feedback scale, a composite feedback variable, was developed using factor analysis. Logistic regression models were then used to determine which faculty characteristics were independently associated with scoring highly on a dichotomized version of the feedback scale. Two hundred and ninety-nine physicians responded (82%) of whom 262 (88%) had taught medical learners in the prior 12 months. Factor analysis revealed that the 7 questions from the survey addressing feedback clustered together to form the "feedback scale" (Cronbach's alpha: 0.76). Six items, representing discrete faculty responses to survey questions, were independently associated with high feedback scores: (i) frequently attempting to detect and discuss the emotional responses of learners (odds ratio [OR]=4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2 to 9.6), (ii) proficiency in handling conflict (OR=3.7, 95% CI 1.5 to 9.3), (iii) frequently asking learners what they desire from the teaching interaction (OR=3.5, 95% CI 1.7 to 7.2), (iv) having written down or reviewed professional goals in the prior year (OR=3.2, 95% CI 1.6 to 6.4), (v) frequently working with learners to establish mutually agreed upon goals, objectives, and ground rules (OR=2.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.7), and (vi) frequently letting learners figure things out themselves, even if they struggle (OR=2.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.9). Beyond providing training in specific feedback skills, programs that want to improve feedback performance among their faculty may wish to promote the teaching behaviors and proficiencies that are associated with high feedback scores identified in this study.

Survey of Accredited Master of Public Health (MPH) Programs With Health Education Concentrations: A Resource for Strengthening the Public Health Workforce

The authors designed survey research to assess accredited master of public health (MPH) programs with health education concentrations. A Web-based survey was distributed to program directors and was used to collect characteristics of program faculty, students, graduates, internships, employment, and competency development. Results indicate that students and graduates are diverse; 72% of students complete internships and 61% of graduates work in government or community public health-related agencies; 98% of faculty hold a doctoral degree and 67% have at least one degree from an accredited public health school or program; and 85% of programs build competencies in most of the Institute of Medicine-suggested areas. The authors conclude that accredited MPH programs with a concentration in health education train diverse public health practitioners highly likely to work in a government or community public health agency with competencies to enhance public health.

Public Investment in University Distance Learning Programs: Some Performance-Based Evidence

An increasing proportion of public expenditures on higher education are devoted to distance learning. This provokes an obvious public policy question—How well does distance learning work? This study addresses that question by means of a large sample, control group study of undergraduate and graduate student success in university distance learning courses. Student success is measured by the grade assigned to the student by his/her faculty member. Gender, age, ethnic background, distance learning experience, experience with the institution providing the instruction and measures of academic aptitude and previous academic success are statistically significant determinants of student success. Similarly, faculty characteristics such as gender, age, ethnic background and education background are statistically significant predictors of student success, though not necessarily in the manner some might hypothesize.

Data Withholding in Genetics and the Other Life Sciences: Prevalences and Predictors

To better understand the variety and prevalence of data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences and to explore factors associated with these behaviors. In 2000, a sample of 2,893 geneticists and other life scientists (OLS) at the 100 most research-intensive universities in the United States were surveyed concerning data withholding and sharing. The instrument was developed and pretested in 1999. The two primary outcome measures were withholding in verbal exchanges with colleagues about unpublished research (verbal withholding) and withholding as part of the publishing process (publishing withholding). The independent variables related to the personal characteristics, research characteristics of faculty, and previous experience with data withholding. A total of 1,849 faculty responded (64%): 1,240 geneticists and 600 OLS. Forty-four percent of geneticists and 32% of OLS reported participating in any one of 13 forms of data withholding in the three previous years. Publishing withholding (geneticists 35%, OLS 25%) was more frequent than verbal withholding (geneticists 23%, OLS 12%). In multivariate analyses, male gender, participation in relationships with industry, mentors' discouraging data sharing, receipt of formal instruction in data sharing, and negative past experience with sharing were significantly associated with either verbal or publishing withholding among either geneticists or OLS. Data withholding is common in biomedical science, takes multiple forms, is influenced by a variety of characteristics of investigators and their training, and varies by field of science. Encouraging openness during the formative experiences of young investigators may be critical to increased data sharing, but the effects of formal training do not appear straightforward.

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment and LIS Program Presentations

American Library Association (ALA) standards for the accreditation of library schools emphasize the of student learning outcomes; this is part of a broader accountability movement in higher education. This study reviews accreditors' statements on assessment, past methods of evaluating library schools, and general definitions of measures of student learning. It then examines fifteen publicly-available program presentations, self-study documents prepared for ALA-Committee on Accreditation visits and review, for descriptions of or indirect measures of student learning outcomes and their use for program-level and improvement. Only seven of the Fifteen presentations describe the use of direct measures of student learning. Further research on program-level use of outcomes measurement would strengthen the profession and address external pressures for concrete accountability. Introduction As educational programs housed in institutions of higher education, library science programs are subject to a growing culture of assessment that has gained strength in recent years. There are increasing demands from state and national legislators for documentation of student learning1, and accrediting agencies, both regional (general institutional) and professional, have responded. The 1992 American Library Association Committee on Accreditation (COA) Standards for Accreditation of Master's programs in Library and Information Studies2 incorporate specific references to the importance of at several levels. The standard for faculty (HI) requires that faculty demonstrate skill in academic planning and Two other standards are even more and explicit: II. Curriculum The curriculum is continually reviewed and receptive to innovation; ils evaluation is used for ongoing appraisal, to make improvements, and to plan for the future. Evaluation of the curriculum includes of students' achievements and their subsequent accomplishments. IV: Students The school applies the results of evaluation of student achievement to development. Procedures are established for systematic evaluation of the degree to which a program's academic and administrative policies and activities regarding students are achieving its objectives.3 Because the standards specify the importance of evaluation and evaluative data, this article examines presentations prepared for ALA accreditation - the primary documentation of how the standards are met- to review in what way library and information science (LIS) masters programs report that student learning outcomes are assessed and their evaluation utilized in planning. Background Professional accreditation is part of overall academic evaluation. The public's view of institutional evaluation has largely revolved around input and process variables. For the 2006 U.S. News and World Report college rankings, the largest single factor (25%) was a reputational survey. Input data (quality of students, faculty characteristics, and spending per student) made up approximately 35%; process variables such as class size approximately 10%; and a type of indirect outcomes data - graduation and retention rates - the remainder.4 The National Survey of Student Engagement, something of a competitor in terms of institutional assessment, is primarily process-oriented, asking students what kinds of educational experiences they have engaged in at their institution.5 There have been relatively few attempts to rate or rank library schools. The U.S. News graduate school rankings for library science and the White studies use only reputational surveys.6 Other researchers have studied faculty (e.g. publications7 and general qualifications8); student or alumni feedback9 and employer feedback.10 Some review administrative inputs such as faculty-student ratio or budgets. To a large degree dissatisfaction with these reputational, input and process oriented approaches contributed to the growing development of an outcomes-based approach, strengthening in the 1980s and 1990s. …

Professional (Entry-Level) Doctoral Degrees in Physical Therapy: Status as of Spring 2003

Background and Purpose. Since its inception in 1993, professional (entry-level) Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) degree has been adopted by a rapidly growing number of programs in United States. The purpose of this study was to provide information on process and status of transition toward DPT in spring 2003, updating and extending a previous study completed in spring 2000. Subjects. Directors of 145 of 191 (76%) accredited physical therapist education programs participated. Method. An Internet-based questionnaire was sent to directors of 191 accredited physical therapist education programs in United States. Results. Of 144 respondents, 119 had made a decision regarding DPT, with 117 of those (98%) deciding in favor of offering DPT degree. Compared to public institutions, a higher proportion of programs at private institutions had decided to implement DPT. Substantially more programs were further along in higher-level approval process than in 2000. Desired characteristics of DPT students at entry were relatively unchanged compared to those desired by programs previously in place at respective institutions. According to questionnaire responses, clinical education characteristics have changed to include: more hours in clinical education, longer duration of each clinical experience, and facilitation of student roles beyond patient care. Almost 90% of DPT programs required either a group or individual culminating scholarly project. Programs' desired faculty characteristics have evolved and put a greater emphasis on a record of publication, establishment of a research agenda, and possession of a doctoral degree other than professional (entry-level) DPT. Discussion and Conclusion. Programs educating physical therapists in United States are transitioning to professional DPT programs at a rate that exceeds prior predictions. While there are still a higher proportion of programs at private than public institutions making transition, other characteristics that once differentiated programs with differing decisions are no longer factors. Key Words: Doctor of Physical Therapy degree, Physical therapist education. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Professional (entry-level) education for physical therapists in United States is rapidly changing to Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) degree. Initially discussed by Johnson in her Mary McMillan lecture to American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) in 1985,' first professional DPT class was initiated at Creighton University in 1993.2 Barely more than a decade later, Evaluative Criteria adopted by Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) indicated that DPT degree was preferred degree to be awarded for completion of a professional physical therapist education program.' The DPT degree is thought to match length and complexity of contemporary physical therapist education as well as provide appropriate preparation for clinical decision-making and diagnostic skills required within contemporary physical therapist practice. The transition to DPT degree has been moving at a pace that is difficult for refereed literature of profession to match. A study conducted by Task Force on Entry-Level Doctoral Education of APTA's Education section was undertaken in spring 2000 and published in 2002. This study, though dated by time of publication, provided insight into process of transition to DPT degree among accredited physical therapist education programs at institutions in United States, and predicted that up to 58 entry-level doctoral programs will exist by 2005.4(p65) However, even in 2000, these authors acknowledged volatile nature of education and practice environments(p61) and anticipated that the nature and pace of transition may undergo substantial change as it unfolds over next several years. …

Factors Associated with Academic Radiology Research Productivity

To determine factors associated with research productivity among all university radiology departments in the United States. As an observational study, this was exempt from institutional review board approval. All 47,299 radiology articles from 1996 through 2003 that were indexed in the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE database were studied. Each article was assigned a "publication impact" score based on the impact factor of its source journal. These citations were then matched, along with National Institutes of Health (NIH) extramural grant, residency, fellowship, faculty, and geographic data, to 109 individual medical school radiology departments. Raw citation count was used to measure research quantity, and aggregate publication impact was used to measure quality. Regression analyses were used to compare the relationship between the study variables and research quality and quantity measures on the departmental and individual faculty level. Finalized statistical models accounted for 75%-88% of variance in productivity. NIH funding had a significant and positive association with all measures of research productivity (P < .001), with one article associated with 167,980 dollars in funding and one publication impact unit associated with 83,271 dollars in funding. Large resident program sizes (P < .001) and the presence of fellows (P = .007) also had a significant association. Geographic region, salary, and faculty characteristics had no detectable association. Extrapolations based on these results estimated the cost of annual global radiology research at 907 million dollars, with the U.S. component at at least 417 million dollars. NIH funding accounted for 45% of the U.S. component. NIH funding, resident program size, and fellow characteristics are significantly associated with academic research output.

Community College Honors and Developmental Faculty: Characteristics, Practices, and Implications for Access and Educational Equity

This study explores the demographic, personal, and professional characteristics of honors and developmental faculty in community colleges. The authors uncover significant racial and ethnic patterns and arrive at a preliminary typology of those who teach at the upper and lower margins of the two-year college curriculum.

Pediatric Faculty Members??? Attitudes about Part-Time Faculty Positions and Policies to Support Part-Time Faculty: A Study at One Medical Center

To examine pediatric faculty members' attitudes about part-time faculty positions and policies to support part-time faculty. In 2001, an anonymous 26-item questionnaire assessing attitudes about part-time faculty was mailed to all 441 faculty members of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Multivariable analyses were used to determine faculty characteristics associated with specific attitudes, and qualitative methods were used to analyze responses to an open-ended item assessing beliefs about facilitating part-time careers. Three hundred (68%) faculty members completed questionnaires. Twenty-nine (10%) worked part-time and an additional 88 (33%) had considered part-time work, primarily because of dependent children. Although 177 (59%) believed that part-time faculty were perceived as being less committed to their careers and the institution, 207 (69%) believed part-time faculty should be eligible for all academic tracks and 219 (73%) that they should be allowed extension of time to obtain tenure. Most reported that policy changes to support part-time faculty would enhance diversity (N = 234, 78%) and improve recruitment, retention, and promotion of female faculty. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that women and respondents with dependent children were more likely to be concerned about perceived commitment and more likely to endorse policies to support part-time faculty. Participants suggested that part-time careers for faculty would be facilitated by clarifying productivity expectations, expanding resources, and modifying existing policies. Although women and respondents with dependent children were concerned about perceived commitment of part-time faculty and were most supportive of policies that would support part-time faculty, pediatric faculty generally supported such policies.

The use of personal digital assistants by nurse practitioner students and faculty

To describe the prevalence and patterns of use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) by nurse practitioner (NP) students and faculty, examine relationships between patterns of use of PDAs and demographic characteristics of NP students and faculty, and describe patterns of use of PDAs that support evidence-based practice (clinical scholarship). Responses to a 20-item questionnaire administered via electronic or postal mail from 227 NP students and faculty. A majority (67%) of the participants used PDAs. Use was higher among men (82%) than women (64%) (p < .05). On average, respondents who used a PDA (N = 153) had been using it just over a year (M = 13 months). Respondents reported using a PDA most days of the week (M = 5 days). The top three medical software programs identified by respondents as the most useful in clinical practice were ePocrates Rx (82%), Griffith's 5-Minute Clinical Consult (26%), and MedCalc (22%). Most participants (96%) related that PDA use supported clinical decision making. Personal digital assistants may facilitate the application of evidence-based knowledge to practice. However, until there is evidence that PDA software is valid and reliable, clinicians should continue to use a multitude of references to assure the quality and safety of care provided.

Graduate Study in Psychology: 1971-2004.

This article traces the evolution of graduate study in psychology in the United States and Canada during the past 3 decades. The authors summarize the 2003-2004 characteristics of graduate programs and departments in psychology and compare these data to those obtained in 1970-1971, 1979-1980, and 1992-1993. The most recent data were obtained from the 2005 edition of Graduate Study in Psychology and were based on 495 institutions, 601 departments, and 1,970 graduate programs. Information is presented for both entire departments (e.g., faculty characteristics, student profiles, admission criteria, Graduate Record Examination and grade point averages, tuition costs, financial assistance) and individual graduate programs (e.g., areas of study, number of applicants, acceptance rates, enrollment statistics, retention rates). Particular attention is devoted to the emergence of PsyD programs in professional psychology, the ascendancy of neuroscience programs in academic psychology, and the steady rise in acceptance rates across programs over the past 33 years.

Journal Impact Factors Do Not Equitably Reflect Academic Staff Performance in Different Medical Subspecialties

BackgroundThe simplest variables to quantify on an academic curriculum vitae are the impact factors (IFs) of journals in which articles have been published. As a result, these measures are increasingly...

Journal Impact Factors Do Not Equitably Reflect Academic Staff Performance in Different Medical Subspecialties

Background The simplest variables to quantify on an academic curriculum vitae are the impact factors (IFs) of journals in which articles have been published. As a result, these measures are increasingly used as part of academic staff assessment. The present study tests the hypotheses that IFs exhibit patterns that are consistent between journals of different specialties and that these IFs reflect the quality of staff academic performance. Methods The IFs of a sample of journals from each of four medical specialties—medicine, oncology, genetics, and public and occupational health—were downloaded from the Science Citation Index and compared. Overall and specialty-specific journal IF frequencies were analyzed with respect to distribution patterns, averages, and skew. Results Approximately 91% of journal IFs fell within the 0 to 5 range, with 97% being less than 10. The overall IF distribution featured a positive skew and a mean of 2.5. Separate analysis of the journal specialty subsets revealed significant differences in IF means (genetics 3.4 &gt; oncology 3.1 &gt; medicine 2.0 &gt; public health 1.6; p &lt; .006), all of which well exceeded the respective IF medians. Journals from the general medicine category exhibited both the lowest IF median (0.7) and the most positively skewed distribution. Conclusion The distribution of IFs exhibits degrees of skew, numeric average, and spread that differ significantly between journal specialty subsets. This suggests that factors other than random variations underlie much of the IF variation between specialty journals and reduces the plausibility of a reliable correlation between IFs and the quality of academic staff performance. It is concluded that a dominant emphasis on IFs in academic recruitment and promotion may select for long-term faculty characteristics other than academic quality alone.

Evaluating Clinical Clerkship in Medical School

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to present the results of a clerkship evaluation done through a student questionnaire, to provide appropriate feedback to faculty, and to make constructive suggestions for improving the educational experience during clerkship. Methods: The evaluation was conducted in 2003 at The College of Medicine at Catholic University. 61 fourth-year medical students who had finished their clerkship rotations completed the given questionnaire. This questionnaire was composed of items covering 8 dimensions related to: overall assessment of the clerkship, problems in clerkship contents and methods, the evaluation process, the best preceptor and the characteristics of the best clinical faculty, the most useful educational activities and constraining activities, and areas to be improved. Results: Most of the students gave a negative evaluation to the overall clerkship. The most serious problems were the high number of activities irrelevant to the clerkship and the lack of opportunity for direct participation. The most useful educational activities were: 1) case presentation on assigned patients, 2) ‘mini lectures' provided during ward rounds, 3) assigned patient care as a team, and 4) performing clinical skills under faculty supervision. The most constraining activities were: 1) difficulty interacting with patients as a student, 2) inefficient time management, and 3) unsystematic clinical clerkship schedule. Conclusion: In conclusion, the most fundamental problem in clinical teaching was the lack of support and incentives for clinical teachers. Not only training sessions for faculty and residents but also financial rewards or promotion opportunities need to be provided for a better quality clinical clerkship.

FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS

Higher Education AbstractsVolume 39, Issue 4 p. 319-320 FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS First published: 30 October 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2150-1092.2004.tb00766.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume39, Issue4Summer 2004Pages 319-320 RelatedInformation

9: Is the Thrill Gone? An Investigation of Faculty Vitality Within the Context of the Community College

This single institutional case study investigated faculty vitality within the context of the community college by answering the following research questions: What are the characteristics of vital faculty within the community college? What effect does the environment have on faculty vitality? What do the vital faculty do to maintain their vitality? Qualitative research methods were employed to study the lives of the faculty within their naturalistic setting, thereby giving voice to the vital community college faculty.

FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS

Higher Education AbstractsVolume 39, Issue 3 p. 226-227 FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS First published: 30 October 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2150-1092.2004.tb00725.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume39, Issue3Spring 2004Pages 226-227 RelatedInformation

Evaluating the service quality of undergraduate nursing education in Taiwan – using quality function deployment

This study applies quality function deployment (QFD) techniques to evaluate the quality of service of undergraduate nursing education in Taiwan from the perspective of nursing students. Survey data from 560 undergraduate nursing students at four Taiwanese universities were subjected to QFD analysis in order to identify the quality characteristics most highly valued by students, the elements of educational service they consider most important and least important, and relationships/discrepancies between student quality requirements and institutional service elements. Results show that students value traditional elements of nursing education – clinical practice and lectures – more highly than recent additions such as computer-aided instruction and multimedia teaching. Results also show that students are looking for quality primarily in the area of faculty characteristics. The implication is that institutions which provide nursing education should not neglect the importance of investing in faculty when they are seeking to upgrade the quality of their programs. Further QFD studies are recommended to evaluate the quality of nursing education from the perspective of preceptors and nurses who help to train students in clinical settings.

Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Clinician-educator faculty are increasing in numbers in academic medical centers, but their academic advancement is slower than that of research faculty. The authors sought to quantify the magnitude of this difference in career advancement and to explore the characteristics of faculty that might explain the difference. In 1999, a questionnaire was administered to all MD faculty at the rank of instructor and above (259) in the Department of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. A total of 180 (69%) faculty returned questionnaires. Of these, 178 identified with one of four career paths: basic researcher (46), clinical researcher (69), academic clinician (38), or teacher-clinician (25). Career path did not differ by age, gender, rank, years on faculty, hours worked per week, family responsibility, or global work satisfaction. After adjusting for age, gender, time at rank, and work satisfaction, the odds of being at a higher rank were 85% less for academic clinicians (odds ratio,.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.40) and 69% less for teacher-clinicians (odds ratio,.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.88) than for basic researchers. Clinical researchers did not differ from basic researchers in the likelihood of being at higher rank. Similarly, compared with basic research faculty, the adjusted odds of being more satisfied with progress towards academic promotion were 92% lower for academic clinicians and 87% lower for teacher-clinicians. Clinician-educator faculty were less likely to be at higher rank at this institution than were faculty in research paths. Differences in rank may be explained by lower rank at hire for faculty in these career paths, time available for scholarly activities, or other resources available to support scholarship. Retaining clinician-educators will require further exploration of barriers to promotion inherent to these career paths and methods of modifying these barriers.

FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS

Higher Education AbstractsVolume 39, Issue 2 p. 124-124 FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS First published: 30 October 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2150-1092.2004.tb00682.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume39, Issue2Winter 2004Pages 124-124 RelatedInformation