A Methodological Review of the Assessment of Humanism in Medical Students

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Humanism is a complex construct that defies simplistic measurement. How educators measure humanism shapes understanding and implications for learners. This systematic review sought to address the following questions: How do medical educators assess humanism in medical students, and how does the measurement impact the understanding of humanism in undergraduate medical education (UME)?

METHOD: Using the IECARES (integrity, excellence, compassion, altruism, respect, empathy, and service) Gold Foundation framework, a search of English literature databases from 2000 to 2013 on assessment of humanism in medical students revealed more than 900 articles, of which 155 met criteria for analysis. Using descriptive statistics, articles and assessments were analyzed for construct measured, study design, assessment method, instrument type, perspective/source of assessment, student level, validity evidence, and national context.

RESULTS: Of 202 assessments reported in 155 articles, 162 (80%) used surveys; 164 (81%) used student self-reports. One hundred nine articles (70%) included only one humanism construct. Empathy was the most prevalent construct present in 96 (62%); 49 (51%) of those used a single instrument. One hundred fifteen (74%) used exclusively quantitative data; only 48 (31%) used a longitudinal design. Construct underrepresentation was identified as a threat to validity in half of the assessments. Articles included 34 countries; 87 (56%) were from North America.

CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of humanism in UME incorporates a limited scope of a complex construct, often relying on single quantitative measures from self-reported survey instruments. This highlights the need for multiple methods, perspectives, and longitudinal designs to strengthen the validity of humanism assessments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S14-S23
JournalAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
Volume90
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2015

Fingerprint

Humanism
humanism
Medical Students
medical student
Undergraduate Medical Education
empathy
educator
Students
Altruism
Literature
English literature
altruism
North America
descriptive statistics
gold
Gold
Self Report
integrity
respect
education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

@article{7d9f7fa1cead472bba9b2c5fddb1e85a,
title = "A Methodological Review of the Assessment of Humanism in Medical Students",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Humanism is a complex construct that defies simplistic measurement. How educators measure humanism shapes understanding and implications for learners. This systematic review sought to address the following questions: How do medical educators assess humanism in medical students, and how does the measurement impact the understanding of humanism in undergraduate medical education (UME)?METHOD: Using the IECARES (integrity, excellence, compassion, altruism, respect, empathy, and service) Gold Foundation framework, a search of English literature databases from 2000 to 2013 on assessment of humanism in medical students revealed more than 900 articles, of which 155 met criteria for analysis. Using descriptive statistics, articles and assessments were analyzed for construct measured, study design, assessment method, instrument type, perspective/source of assessment, student level, validity evidence, and national context.RESULTS: Of 202 assessments reported in 155 articles, 162 (80{\%}) used surveys; 164 (81{\%}) used student self-reports. One hundred nine articles (70{\%}) included only one humanism construct. Empathy was the most prevalent construct present in 96 (62{\%}); 49 (51{\%}) of those used a single instrument. One hundred fifteen (74{\%}) used exclusively quantitative data; only 48 (31{\%}) used a longitudinal design. Construct underrepresentation was identified as a threat to validity in half of the assessments. Articles included 34 countries; 87 (56{\%}) were from North America.CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of humanism in UME incorporates a limited scope of a complex construct, often relying on single quantitative measures from self-reported survey instruments. This highlights the need for multiple methods, perspectives, and longitudinal designs to strengthen the validity of humanism assessments.",
author = "Era Buck and Mark Holden and Karen Szauter",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0000000000000910",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "90",
pages = "S14--S23",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Methodological Review of the Assessment of Humanism in Medical Students

AU - Buck, Era

AU - Holden, Mark

AU - Szauter, Karen

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Humanism is a complex construct that defies simplistic measurement. How educators measure humanism shapes understanding and implications for learners. This systematic review sought to address the following questions: How do medical educators assess humanism in medical students, and how does the measurement impact the understanding of humanism in undergraduate medical education (UME)?METHOD: Using the IECARES (integrity, excellence, compassion, altruism, respect, empathy, and service) Gold Foundation framework, a search of English literature databases from 2000 to 2013 on assessment of humanism in medical students revealed more than 900 articles, of which 155 met criteria for analysis. Using descriptive statistics, articles and assessments were analyzed for construct measured, study design, assessment method, instrument type, perspective/source of assessment, student level, validity evidence, and national context.RESULTS: Of 202 assessments reported in 155 articles, 162 (80%) used surveys; 164 (81%) used student self-reports. One hundred nine articles (70%) included only one humanism construct. Empathy was the most prevalent construct present in 96 (62%); 49 (51%) of those used a single instrument. One hundred fifteen (74%) used exclusively quantitative data; only 48 (31%) used a longitudinal design. Construct underrepresentation was identified as a threat to validity in half of the assessments. Articles included 34 countries; 87 (56%) were from North America.CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of humanism in UME incorporates a limited scope of a complex construct, often relying on single quantitative measures from self-reported survey instruments. This highlights the need for multiple methods, perspectives, and longitudinal designs to strengthen the validity of humanism assessments.

AB - BACKGROUND: Humanism is a complex construct that defies simplistic measurement. How educators measure humanism shapes understanding and implications for learners. This systematic review sought to address the following questions: How do medical educators assess humanism in medical students, and how does the measurement impact the understanding of humanism in undergraduate medical education (UME)?METHOD: Using the IECARES (integrity, excellence, compassion, altruism, respect, empathy, and service) Gold Foundation framework, a search of English literature databases from 2000 to 2013 on assessment of humanism in medical students revealed more than 900 articles, of which 155 met criteria for analysis. Using descriptive statistics, articles and assessments were analyzed for construct measured, study design, assessment method, instrument type, perspective/source of assessment, student level, validity evidence, and national context.RESULTS: Of 202 assessments reported in 155 articles, 162 (80%) used surveys; 164 (81%) used student self-reports. One hundred nine articles (70%) included only one humanism construct. Empathy was the most prevalent construct present in 96 (62%); 49 (51%) of those used a single instrument. One hundred fifteen (74%) used exclusively quantitative data; only 48 (31%) used a longitudinal design. Construct underrepresentation was identified as a threat to validity in half of the assessments. Articles included 34 countries; 87 (56%) were from North America.CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of humanism in UME incorporates a limited scope of a complex construct, often relying on single quantitative measures from self-reported survey instruments. This highlights the need for multiple methods, perspectives, and longitudinal designs to strengthen the validity of humanism assessments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84954307747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84954307747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000910

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000910

M3 - Review article

C2 - 26505097

AN - SCOPUS:84954307747

VL - 90

SP - S14-S23

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 11

ER -