Baillet ELE, Ponce RER, Landgrave IS, Jiménez GI, Navarro GAM, Villanueva EEM

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 35-41
PDF size: 129.21 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: During research mentoring process, a relationship between resident and tutor is developed which is of great importance for thesis development. This paper presents the self-perception on positive and negative aspects that residents experienced during their thesis development.
Objective: To identify the general characteristics of residents’ self-perception in their relationship with family medicine tutor during the research mentoring process.
Material and methods: A descriptive, cross sectional, and observational study was performed. Seventy seven residents from Specialization Course in Family Medicine participated in this study. A questionnaire to assess self-perception of the relationship of residents with their tutor during the thesis tutoring process was designed. The questionnaire was part of a 45 item instrument, 15 to evaluate the characteristics of self-perception of their relationship with the Family Medicine tutor during the research mentoring process. The questions were designed on an ordinal scale of six semantic differential-type response choices with values between 1 and 6. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive and inferential statistics (binomial test and χ2). Reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
Results: The average of residents’ self-perception assessment in the positive scale (8 items) was 42.81 ± 5.09, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient = 0.833. Average in the negative scale (7 items) was 16.70 ± 6523, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient = 0.645.
Conclusions: Residents perceive themselves with high scores on: interest, punctuality, honesty, commitment, satisfaction, compliance, motivation and ability, they showed low scores on negative attitudes and intolerance during the mentoring process. No clear trend (mean scores) in their self-perception in aspects such as irresponsibility, boredom, frustration and preference for not doing the thesis work and using the time in other activities however was showed. Results lead to analyze construct validity of the elements that formed the theoretical content of the questionnaire used.

REFERENCES

1. Baillet LE, Ponce ER, Navarro AM, Gómez FJF, et al. Percepción acerca de las características de la relación tutor – residente en investigación en medicina familiar. Aten Fam. 2010;17(1):10-3.

2. Chapa T, Ponce ER, Navarro AM, Gómez FJF, et al. Modelos de tutoría en investigación en el Curso de Especialización en Medicina Familiar de México. DPM. 2009;2(4):30-8.

3. López SA, Baesa JM, Lebrato RM. ¿Qué esperan de sus tutores los residentes de medicina familiar? Una aproximación cualitativa. Aten Primaria. 26(6):362-7.

4. Formación de investigadores en medicina familiar: El modelo de tutorización en investigación Asesor- Tutor- Residente (ATR) Educ Med. 2003;6(2):81-6.

5. Gayoso P, Viana C, García J, Trojal F. Los tutores de medicina de familia: actitudes y actividades de tutorización. Aten Primaria. 1995;15(8):481-6.

6. Ethical Standard of American Educational Research Association (AERA). Policy, Standars and Statements. Agosto de 2003, (10 pantallas). Disponible en URL: http://www.aera.net/about/policy/ethics.htm

7. Code of Professional responsibilities in Educational Measurement. National Council of Measurement in Education. Enero de 2003, (9 pantallas). Disponible en URL: http:///WWW.natd.org/Code_of_Professional_Responsibilities.html

8. Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education. American Psychological Association (APA). Agosto de 2003 (11 pantallas). Disponible en URL: http://www.apa.org/science/code-draft.html

9. Ros ME. Las competencias profesionales adquiridas en medicina familiar y comunitaria. Una mirada desde tutores y residentes. Educación Médica. 2004; 7(4): 125-131.

10. Giménez GN, et al. Formación en investigación: autopercepción de los profesionales sobre sus necesidades. Med Clin (Barce). 2009;132(3):112-7.

11. García ME. Problemas de los residentes: ¿cómo podemos solucionarlos?. Semin Fun Esp Reumatol. 2009;10(3):100-3.

12. Ríos A, et al. Formación investigadora durante la residencia MIR. Encuesta de satisfacción. Rev Esp Enfer Dig (Madrid). 2004;96(10):695-704.

13. Olivé A. La insoportable levedad de una relación: tutores y residentes. Rev Esp Reumatol. 2002;29(7):321-2.