Evaluating Generalist Education Programs

A Conceptual Framework

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine, v. 9 suppl. 1, Apr. 1994, p. S64-S72

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 1994

by Lisa V. Rubenstein, Arlene Fink, Lillian Gelberg, Carol Berkowitz, Alan S. Robbins, Thomas S. Inui

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.springerlink.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

This paper provides and applies a conceptual framework and a list of guiding principles for evaluation of generalist education programs. Programs are systematic efforts to achieve specified objectives. Evaluations gather data in order to improve or appraise programs and have a continuum of purposes and methods. Descriptive evaluations characterize the structures, processes, and outcomes of programs; research evaluations definitively assess the effectiveness of a program in terms of outcomes. Intermediate outcomes are changes in knowledge, attitudes, and skills of program participants; conclusive outcomes reflect the quality of performance of graduates in actual clinical situations. Outcomes are affected by inputs--the qualities of students entering the program. Guiding principles of program evaluation ensure that data gathered are useful. The authors illustrate the guiding principles with an actual pilot study that determined that expert pediatricians, general internists, and family practitioners could agree on key generalist competencies and that explores evaluation design based on these competencies. Finally, they consider the implications of undertaking generalist education evaluation.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.