© 2015 American College of Radiology. Purpose: The didactic lecture remains one of the most popular teaching formats in medical education; yet, factors that most influence lecturing success in radiology education are unknown. The purpose of this study is to identify patterns of narrative student feedback that are associated with relatively higher and lower evaluation scores. Methods: All student evaluations from our core radiology elective during 1 year were compiled. All evaluation comments were tagged, to identify discrete descriptive concepts. Correlation coefficients were calculated, for each tag with mean evaluation scores. Tags that were the most strongly associated with the highest- versus lowest-rated (> or < 1 SD) lectures were identified. Results: A total of 3,262 comments, on 273 lectures, rated by 77 senior medical students, were analyzed. The mean lecture score was 8.96 ± 0.62. Three tags were significantly positively correlated with lecture score: "interactive"; "fun/engaging"; and "practical/important content" (r= 0.39, r= 0.34, and r= 0.32, respectively; all P < .001). More tags (n= 12) were significantly negatively correlated with score; the three tags with the strongest such correlation were: "not interactive"; "poorly structured or unevenly paced"; and "content too detailed or abundant" (r= -0.44, r= -0.39, and r= -0.36, respectively; all P < .001). Analysis of only the highest- and lowest-rated lectures yielded similar results. Conclusions: Several factors were identified that were strongly associated with lecture score. Among the actionable characteristics, interactive lectures with appropriately targeted content (ie, practical/useful) were the most highly rated.

Purpose The didactic lecture remains one of the most popular teaching formats in medical education; yet, factors that most influence lecturing success in radiology education are unknown. The purpose of this study is to identify patterns of narrative student feedback that are associated with relatively higher and lower evaluation scores. Methods All student evaluations from our core radiology elective during 1 year were compiled. All evaluation comments were tagged, to identify discrete descriptive concepts. Correlation coefficients were calculated, for each tag with mean evaluation scores. Tags that were the most strongly associated with the highest- versus lowest-rated (> or < 1 SD) lectures were identified. Results A total of 3,262 comments, on 273 lectures, rated by 77 senior medical students, were analyzed. The mean lecture score was 8.96 ± 0.62. Three tags were significantly positively correlated with lecture score: "interactive"; "fun/engaging"; and "practical/important content" (r = 0.39, r = 0.34, and r = 0.32, respectively; all P <.001). More tags (n = 12) were significantly negatively correlated with score; the three tags with the strongest such correlation were: "not interactive"; "poorly structured or unevenly paced"; and "content too detailed or abundant" (r = -0.44, r = -0.39, and r = -0.36, respectively; all P <.001). Analysis of only the highest- and lowest-rated lectures yielded similar results. Conclusions Several factors were identified that were strongly associated with lecture score. Among the actionable characteristics, interactive lectures with appropriately targeted content (ie, practical/useful) were the most highly rated.

© 2015 AUR. Rationale and Objectives: Physicians receive little training on proper multiple-choice question (MCQ) writing methods. Well-constructed MCQs follow rules, which ensure that a question tests what it is intended to test. Questions that break these are described as "flawed." We examined whether the prevalence of flawed questions differed significantly between those with or without prior training in question writing and between those with different levels of educator experience. Materials and Methods: We assessed 200 unedited MCQs from a question bank for our senior medical student radiology elective: an equal number of questions (50) were written by faculty with previous training in MCQ writing, other faculty, residents, and medical students. Questions were scored independently by two readers for the presence of 11 distinct flaws described in the literature. Results: Questions written by faculty with MCQ writing training had significantly fewer errors: mean 0.4 errors per question compared to a mean of 1.5-1.7 errors per question for the other groups (P < .001). There were no significant differences in the total number of errors between the untrained faculty, residents, and students (P values .35-.91). Among trained faculty 17/50 questions (34%) were flawed, whereas other faculty wrote 38/50 (76%) flawed questions, residents 37/50 (74%), and students 44/50 (88%). Trained question writers' higher performance was mainly manifest in the reduced frequency of five specific errors. Conclusions: Faculty with training in effective MCQ writing made fewer errors in MCQ construction. Educator experience alone had no effect on the frequency of flaws; faculty without dedicated training, residents, and students performed similarly.

© 2014 American College of Radiology. We developed a new careerdecision-focused course that is novel in several ways: The objectives and activities were focused solely on providing information about the training of and careers of radiologists. As such, it included unique teaching experiences that we intentionally do not include in our general radiology elective for future ordering providers. Our rationale behind these choices is highlighted in Table 3. It was scheduled early in the clinical years (ie, the middle of the third year). Overall, the students were very satisfied with their experience in the Radiology Primer course and felt that they obtained sufficient information to make a career decision. Although we do not expect all institutions to have exactly the same curricular structure or timing flexibility to address these problems in an identical manner, these challenges are common, and a range of similar solutions may be used at various institutions.

Rationale and Objectives: Studies show that problems with interprofessional collaboration can result in adverse patient outcomes. These problems are common in the field of radiology, where technology has decreased opportunities for direct communication and collaboration with referring physicians. To our knowledge, critical reflection has not been studied as an intervention to better understand one's own and/or others' roles in the context of an interprofessional team, or more specifically, to improve interprofessional collaboration between radiologists and other physicians. Materials and Methods: We trialed a reflective journaling assignment in our fourth year medical student general radiology elective. Student journal content was scored by percentage of comments reflecting on elective experiences versus recounting events. Content was categorized as "reflection" using an established measurement tool. Reflective content was evaluated to identify common themes. Results: A total of 31 journals (178 entries and 26,749 words) were analyzed. Reflective content accounted for 43% of overall content and was subdivided into three categories: insight into one's own role and responsibilities as an ordering physician (20%), insight into a radiologist's role and responsibilities (12%), and thoughts on improving interprofessional collaboration with radiologists (11%). Conclusions: Reflective writing allows students to explore their own role and responsibilities in the context of an interprofessional team and may improve interprofessional teamwork with radiologists.

Rationale and Objectives: Medical imaging education often has limited representation in formal medical student curricula. Although the need for greater inclusion of radiology material is generally agreed on, the exact skillset that should be taught is less clear. The purpose of our study was to perform a needs assessment for a national radiology curriculum for medical students. Materials and Methods: We analyzed data from previous unpublished portions of the American College of Radiology/Alliance of Medical Student Educators in Radiology survey of Deans and Radiology Chairs regarding prevalence of radiology curricular revisions, assessment tools, use of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria, and resources used in curriculum revision. We also performed a literature search through both PubMED and a general search engine (Google) to identify available resources for designing and implementing imaging curricula and curricular revisions. Results: Medical school deans and chairs reported a need for more overall radiology content; one of every six programs (15%) reported they had no recognized imaging curriculum. Of schools currently with imaging curricula, 82% have undergone revision in the last 10 years using a variety of different resources, but there is no universally agreed on guide or standard curriculum. The PubMED and Google searches identified only 23 and eight resources, respectively, suggesting a sizable deficit in available guidance; however, a single published medical student radiology curriculum is available through the Alliance of Medical Student Educators in Radiology. Conclusions: There is a need, but few available resources, to guide educators in adding imaging content to medical school curricula. We postulate that a standardized national curriculum directed by a focused skillset may be useful to educators and could result in greater uniformity of imaging skills among graduating US medical students. A proposed skillset to guide a national curriculum in radiology is described.

Rationale and Objectives: There are little data as to whether appropriate, cost effective, and safe ordering of imaging examinations are adequately taught in US medical school curricula. We sought to determine the proportion of noninterpretive content (such as appropriate ordering) versus interpretive content (such as reading a chest x-ray) in the top-selling medical student radiology textbooks. Materials and Methods: We performed an online search to identify a ranked list of the six top-selling general radiology textbooks for medical students. Each textbook was reviewed including content in the text, tables, images, figures, appendices, practice questions, question explanations, and glossaries. Individual pages of text and individual images were semiquantitatively scored on a six-level scale as to the percentage of material that was interpretive versus noninterpretive. The predominant imaging modality addressed in each was also recorded. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Results: All six books had more interpretive content. On average, 1.4 pages of text focused on interpretation for every one page focused on noninterpretive content. Seventeen images/figures were dedicated to interpretive skills for every one focused on noninterpretive skills. In all books, the largest proportion of text and image content was dedicated to plain films (51.2%), with computed tomography (CT) a distant second (16%). The content on radiographs (3.1:1) and CT (1.6:1) was more interpretive than not. Conclusions: The current six top-selling medical student radiology textbooks contain a preponderance of material teaching image interpretation compared to material teaching noninterpretive skills, such as appropriate imaging examination selection, rational utilization, and patient safety.