Developing scholarly projects in education: A primer for medical teachers

References

• American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, & Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Education Research Association, Washington, DC 1999
   Google Scholar
• Beattie DS. Expanding the view of scholarship: Introduction. Acad Med 2000; 75: 871–876
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckman TJ, Cook DA. Educational epidemiology. JAMA 2004; 292: 2969
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckman TJ, Cook DA, Mandrekar JN. What is the validity evidence for assessments of clinical teaching?. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20: 1159–1164
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckman TJ, Cook DA, Mandrekar JN. Factor instability of clinical teaching assessment scores among general internists and cardiologists. Med Educ 2006; 40: 1209–1216
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001; 76: 889–896
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bordage G, Dawson B. Experimental study design and grant writing in eight steps and 28 questions. Med Educ 2003; 37: 376–385
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyer EL. Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoria. Wiley, New York 1990
   Google Scholar
• Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally, Chicago 1966
   Google Scholar
• Carney PA, Neirenberg DW, Pipas CF, Brooks WB, Stukel TA, Keller AM. Educational epidemiology: applying population-based design and analytic approaches to study medical education. JAMA 2004; 292: 1044–1050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chubin DE, Hackett EJ. Peer review and the printed word. Peerless science: peer review and U.S. science policy, DE Chubin, EJ Hackett. State University of New York Press, Albany 1990; 83–122
   Google Scholar
• Chubin DE, Hackett EJ. Peer review and the printed word. Peerless science: peer review and U.S. science policy. State University of New York Press, Albany 1990; 83–122
   Google Scholar
• Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med 2006; 119: 166e7–166e16
   Google Scholar
• Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G. Quality of reporting experimental studies in medical education: A systematic review. Med Educ. In press
   Google Scholar
• Crandall SJ, Steinecke A. Reference to the literature and documentation. Acad Med 2001; 76: 925–927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 361–366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVillis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. Sage Publications, London 1991
   Google Scholar
• Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 2003; 37: 830–837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fincher RE, Work JA. Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching. Med Educ 2006; 40: 293–295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox AT, Palmer RD, Crossley JGM, Sekaran D, Trewavas ES, Davies HA. Improving the quality of outpatient clinic letters using the Sheffield Assessment Instrument for Letters SAIL. Med Educ 2004; 38: 852–858
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE. How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill, New York 2003
   Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine De Gruyter, New York 1995
   Google Scholar
• Glassick CE. Boyer's expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards of assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Acad Med 2000; 75: 877–880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI. Scholarship assessed: evaluation of the professoriate. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 1997
   Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Taylor R. How to read a paper: papers that go beyond numbers qualitative research. BMJ 1997; 315: 740–743
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haig A, Dozier M. BEME Guide No 3: Systematic searching for evidence in medical education––part 1: Sources of information. Med Teach 2003; 25: 352–363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hulley SB, Cummings SR. Designing Clinical Research. Baltimore. Williams & Wilkins, MD 1988
   Google Scholar
• Hutchings P, Schulman L. The scholarship of teaching. Change 1999; 31: 11–15
   Google Scholar
• Hutchinson L. Evaluating and researching the effectiveness of educational interventions. BMJ 1999; 318: 1267–1269
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy TJ, Lingard LA. Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Med Educ 2006; 40: 101–108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick D. Revisiting Kirkpatrick's four-level model. Training and Development 1996; 50: 54–59
   Google Scholar
• Marks RG, Dawson-Saunders EK, Bailar JC, Dann BB, Verran JA. Interactions between statisticians and biomedical journal editors. Stat Med 1988; 7: 1003–1011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGaghie WC, Bordage G, Shea JA. Manuscript introduction: Problem statement, conceptual framework, and research question. Acad Med 2001; 76: 923–924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messick S. Validity. Educational measurement3rd, RL Linn. Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ 1993
   Google Scholar
• Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications, CA 1994
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896–1900
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001; 285: 1987–1991
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Developing research questions in medical education: the science and the art. Med Educ 2002; 36: 596–597
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman G. RCT = results confounded and trivial: the perils of grand educational experiments. Med Edu 2003; 37: 582–584
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Available online at: http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp (accessed March 2006)
   Google Scholar
• Prideaux D. Researching the outcomes of educational interventions: A matter of design. British Medical Journal 2002; 324: 126–127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prideaux D, Bligh J. Research in medical education: asking the right questions. Med Educ 2002; 36: 1114–1115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prince KJAH, van Mameren H, Hylkema N, Drukker J, Scherpbier AJJA, van der Vleuten CPM. Does problem-based learning lead to deficiencies in basic science knowledge? An empirical case on anatomy. Med Educ 2003; 37: 15–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed D, Price EG, Windish DM, Wright, Gozu A, Hsu EB, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of educational intervention studies. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 1080–1089
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossman GB, Wilson BL. Numbers and words: combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Revi 1985; 9: 627–643
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider JR, Sherman HB, Prystowsky JB, Schindler N, Darosa DA. Questioning skills: the effect of wait time on accuracy of medical student responses to oral and written questions. Acad Med 2004; 79: s28–s30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea JA. Mind the gap: some reasons why medical education research is different from health services research. Med Educ 2001; 35: 319–320
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar