Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2022 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Guimarães, Déborah Lobato
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Navarro, Karen Cecília de Lima Torres
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Simões , Bárbara dos Santos
,
Santos, Silvana Maria Elói
|
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade José do Rosário Vellano
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Mestrado em Ensino em Saúde
|
| Departamento: |
Pós-Graduação
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede2.unifenas.br:8080/jspui/handle/jspui/316
|
Resumo: |
Introduction: The possible existence of differences in performance between specialist and non-specialist tutors in problem-based learning (PBL) has been controversial in the literature. Objectives: search for evidence of psychometric validation and reliability of the Revised University of Sydney Medical Program PBL Tutor Form (RUSMP) instrument. Investigate the student’s perception regarding the performance of the specialist tutor compared to the non- specialist tutor. Identify factors that interfere in the tutor's performance. Methodology: cross- sectional and comparative study with medical students from the 1st to the 8th periods of UNIFENAS BH. Psychometric validation of the instrument already translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese was performed. The questionnaire was applied to the same students at two different times, one in which the tutor is a specialist and the other in which the same tutor is not a specialist in the thematic block, during the online tutorial group (TG). The primary outcome was the performance of tutors. The main exposure variable was whether the tutor was a specialist or not. Qualitative evaluation was performed using the content analysis technique. Results: after factor analysis, 9 questions were excluded from the original questionnaire, resulting in a questionnaire with 12 items for the clinical cycle (with 3 dimensions: group process, independent study and clinical reasoning). Reliability was assessed by Cronbach's alpha 0.878 The version adapted for the basic cycle did not meet the statistical criteria proposed for its validation. In the paired analyses, 124 students from the basic cycle and 85 students from the clinical cycle participated in the study. Multivariate analysis showed no statistically significant difference between expert and non-expert tutor performance. However, the qualitative analysis, which revealed 3final categories: technical knowledge, process of conducting the tutorial group and student-tutor relationship, showed that, in the student’s perception, the variables related to the tutor's performance were important. Conclusions: the tutor's form instrument in the PBL RUSMP, translated and adapted, which assesses the tutor's performance, presented evidence of validity and reliability in the clinical cycle. For the Unifenas-BH medical student, the tutor's expertise, the way the tutorial group is managed and the personal relationship are important variables related to the student's perception of the tutor's performance. |
