World Wide Web and compact disc–read only memory technologies have introduced new prospects for delivering continuing medical education (CME) to rural and remote physicians. However, evidence concerning the effectiveness of these technologies in providing CME, and approaches to their evaluation, is limited. The rationale for this study was to design a model for evaluating the effectiveness of computer-mediated CME courseware. An eclectic, evaluation-planning matrix was designed by selecting various concepts from the literature and was used in planning and developing the evaluation model. The model was field-tested by evaluating a computermediated courseware program on dermatological office procedures, and a meta-evaluation was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the evaluation methods and procedures. The findings suggest that the model was useful in collecting data to inform decision making and to improve the instructional product. The field test results revealed that computer-mediated instruction was effective in delivering CME at a distance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrahamson, S.
(1984). Evaluation of continuing education in the health professions. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 7(1), 3-23.
2.
Babbie, E.
(1992). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
3.
Baker, J. R.
, Claus, R. N., & Manley, M. (1980). Meta-evaluation of the Saginaw Township Middle School enrichment center project, 1979-80. ED 206 720.
4.
Cervero, R. M.
(1988). Effective continuing education for professionals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Coldeway, N. A.
, & DeLisa, J. A. (1986). Evaluation of continuing medical education: Making a difference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 67, 181-186.
6.
Collis, B. A.
(1993). Evaluating instructional applications of telecommunications in distance education. Educational Technology & Training International, 30(3), 266-274.
7.
Dick, W.
, & Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design of instruction (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
8.
Galbreath, J.
(1992). The educational buzzword of the 1990s: Multimedia, or is it hypermedia, or interactive multimedia or …. Educational Technology, 32(4), 15-19.
9.
Galvin, J. R.
, D’Alessandro, M. P., Erkonen, W. E., Knutson, T. A., & Lacey, D. L. (1994). The virtual hospital: A new paradigm for lifelong learning in radiology. Radiographics, 14, 875-879.
10.
Gowin, D.
, & Millman, J. (1978). Can meta-evaluation give a direction for research on evaluation? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 62nd American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario. ED 161 938.
11.
Guba, E. G.
, & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Hayes, K.
, & Lehman, C. U. (1996). The interactive patient: A multimedia interactive educational tool on the world wide web. M.D. Computing, 13(4), 330-334.
13.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation
(1st ed.). (1981). Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects and materials. New York: McGraw-Hill.
14.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation
(2nd ed.). (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards. London: Sage.
15.
Kerr, B. D. (1997). A responsive evaluation of a graduate distance education course offering. Unpublished thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland at St. John’s.
16.
Kirkpatrick, D. L.
(1976). Evaluation of Training. In Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago: Follett.
17.
Moore, D. E.
, Green, J. S., Jay, S. J., Leist, J. C., & Maitland, F. M. (1994). Creating a new paradigm for CME: Seizing opportunities within the health care revolution. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 14, 4-31.
18.
Muller, E.
(1995). Application of Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs to Educational Software Evaluation. Educational Technology, 25(10), 27-31.
19.
Northrup, P. T.
(1995). Concurrent formative evaluation: Guidelines and implications for multi-media designers. Educational Technology, 35(6), 24-31.
20.
Piemme, T. E.
(1988). Computer-assisted learning and evaluation in medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 260(3), 367-372.
21.
Reiser, R. A.
, & Dick, W. (1990). Evaluating instructional software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(3), 43-50.
22.
Scriven, M. S.
(1967). The methodology of evaluation. In perspectives of curriculum evaluation (AERA Monograph series on curriculum evaluation, No. 1). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
23.
Scriven, M. S.
(1969). An Introduction to Meta-evaluation. Educational Product Report, 2(5), 36-38.
24.
Sheets, K. J. (1983). The design, development, and fieldtest of an evaluation framework for short-term training programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University at East Lansing.
25.
Stake, R. E.
(1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523-540.
26.
Steele, S. M.
(1973). Contemporary Approaches to Program Evaluation and Their Implications for Evaluating Programs for Disadvantaged Adults. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Education.
27.
Stocking, J. E.
, & Benjamin, P. (1995). Current Status of Interactive Multimedia Education in Medicine. M.D. Computing, 12(5), 373-380.
28.
Stufflebeam, D. L.
(1974). Toward a technology for evaluating evaluations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. ED 090 319.
29.
Stufflebeam, D. L.
(1981). Meta-evaluation: Concepts, Standards, and Uses. In R. Berk (Ed.), Educational evaluation methodology: The state of the art. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
30.
Thorpe, M.
(1993). Evaluating open and distance learning. London: Longman.
31.
Willis, B.
(1993). Distance education a practical guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
32.
Worthen, B. R.
, & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.
