EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 18 / Numéro 1 (Février 2017) Pédagogie Médicale, 18 1 (2017) 17-24 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 18, Number 1, Février 2017
Page(s) 17 - 24
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2017023
Published online 15 mars 2018
  1. Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach 2010;328:676‐682. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chou S, Lockyer J, Cole G, McLaughlin K. Assessing postgraduate trainees in Canada: are we achieving diversity in methods? Med Teach 2009;322:58‐63. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Streiner DL. Assessing Clinical Competence. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lacasse M, Rheault C, Tremblay I, Renaud JS, Coché F, St Pierre A, et al. Développement d'un outil novateur critérié d'évaluation des compétences à partir d'indicateurs de développement pour les résidents en médecine familiale. Pédagogie Médicale 2016; soumis pour publication. [Google Scholar]
  5. Tannenbaum D, Konkin J, Organek A, Parsons E, Saucier D et al. 2011. Cursus Triple C axé sur le développement des compétences. Rapport du Groupe de travail sur la révision du cursus postdoctoral – Partie 1. Mississauga (ON) : Collège des médecins de famille du Canada. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ten Cate O. Medical education: trust, competence, and the supervisor's role in postgraduate training. BMJ 2006;333:748. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ten Cate O. AM last page: what entrustable professional activities add to a competency-based curriculum. Acad Med 2014;89:691. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lacasse M, Théorêt J, Tessier S, Arsenault L. Expectations of clinical teachers and faculty regarding development of the CanMEDS-Family Medicine competencies: Laval developmental benchmarks scale for family medicine residency training. Teach Learn Med 2014;26:244‐251. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Oandasan I, Saucier D. (Eds). 2013. Rapport sur le Cursus Triple C axé sur le développement des compétences – Partie 2 : Faire progresser la mise en œuvre. Mississauga, ON : Collège des médecins de famille du Canada, vol. 10. [Google Scholar]
  10. Tardif J. L'évaluation des compétences : documenter le parcours de développement. Montréal : Chenelière éducation, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lacasse M, Rheault C, Tremblay I, Renaud J-S, Coché F, St-Pierre A, Théorêt J, Tessier S, Arsenault L, Simard M-L, Simard C, Savard I, Castel J, Côté L. Indicateurs de développement en médecine familiale : Intervalles attendus pour développer un niveau de compétence autonome durant le programme de résidence [En ligne]. Québec : Département de médecine familiale et de médecine d’urgence, Université Laval; 2016. [cité le 1er décembre 2017] Disponible sur http://www.fmed.ulaval.ca/fileadmin/documents/programmes-etudes/etudes-medecine/post-md-residence/medecine-famille/indicateurs-developpement-medecine-familiale.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  12. Joint Committee of the American Educational Research. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington (DC): American Psychological Associatio, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  13. Forget MH. Le développement des méthodes de verbalisation de l'action : un apport certain à la recherche qualitative. Recher Qual 2013;32(1):57‐80. [Google Scholar]
  14. Durning SJ, Artino AR, Beckman TJ, Graner J, VanDerVleuten E et al. Does the think-aloud protocol reflect thinking? Exploring functional neuroimaging differences with thinking (answering multiple choice questions) versus thinking aloud. Med Teach 2013;35:720‐726. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Drennan, J. Cognitive interviewing: verbal data in the design and pretesting of questionnaires. J Adv Nurs 2003;42:57‐63. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 2003;12:229‐238. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Willis GB, Royston P, Bercini D. The use of verbal report methods in the development and testing of survey questionnaires. Appl Cogn Psychol 1991;5:251‐267. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Forsyth B, Levin K, Fisher S. Test of an appraisal method for establishment survey questionnaires, in Proceedings of the ASA Section on Survey Research Methods. Alexandria (VA): American Statistical Association, 1999, p. 145-149. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bolton RN. Pretesting questionnaires: content analyses of respondents' concurrent verbal protocols. Mark Sci 1993;12:280‐303. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Graesser AC, Bommaredy S, Swamer SS, Golding JM. Integrating questionnaire design with a cognitive computational model of human question answering, in Answering questions: methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research, Schwarz N, Sudman S, Editors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996, p. 143-175. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tourangeau R, Rasinski KA. Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychol Bull 1988;103:299. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Van Someren MW, Barnard YF, Sandberg JA. The think aloud method: a practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fortin M. Fondements du processus de recherche : méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. Montréal : Chenelière Éducation, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  24. Golafshani N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Rep 2003;8(4):597‐606. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hayes JR, Hatch JA. Issues in measuring reliability correlation versus percentage of agreement. Writ Commun 1999;16:354‐367. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Thorndike EL. A constant error in psychological ratings. J appl psychol 1920; 4: 25‐29. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Schwarz N, Oyserman D. Asking questions about behavior: cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. Am J Eval 2001;22:127‐160. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Wänke M. Conversational norms and the interpretation of vague quantifiers. Appl Cogn Psychol 2002;16:301‐307. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Schwarz N. Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol 1999;54:93‐105. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Reiser BJ, Black JB, Abelson RP. Knowledge structures in the organization and retrieval of autobiographical memories. Cogn Psychol 1985;17:89‐137. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Williams MD, Hollan JD. The process of retrieval from very long-term memory. Cogn Sci 1981;5:87‐119. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hoppmann TK. Examining the ‘point of frustration’. The think-aloud method applied to online search tasks. Qual Quant 2007;43:211‐224. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Virzi RA. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 1992;34:457‐468. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC. Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res 2002;28(4):587‐604. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.