Status of portfolios in undergraduate medical education in the LCME accredited US medical school

Jason Chertoff, Ashleigh Wright, Maureen Novak, Joseph Fantone, Amy Fleming, Toufeeq Ahmed, Marianne Green, Adina Kalet, Machelle Linsenmeyer, Joshua Jacobs, Christina Dokter, Zareen Zaidi*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: We sought to investigate the number of US medical schools utilizing portfolios, the format of portfolios, information technology (IT) innovations, purpose of portfolios and their ability to engage faculty and students. Methods: A 21-question survey regarding portfolios was sent to the 141 LCME-accredited, US medical schools. The response rate was 50% (71/141); 47% of respondents (33/71) reported that their medical school used portfolios in some form. Of those, 7% reported the use of paper-based portfolios and 76% use electronic portfolios. Forty-five percent reported portfolio use for formative evaluation only; 48% for both formative and summative evaluation, and 3% for summative evaluation alone. Results: Seventy-two percent developed a longitudinal, competency-based portfolio. The most common feature of portfolios was reflective writing (79%). Seventy-three percent allow access to the portfolio off-campus, 58% allow usage of tablets and mobile devices, and 9% involve social media within the portfolio. Eighty percent and 69% agreed that the portfolio engaged students and faculty, respectively. Ninety-seven percent reported that the portfolios used at their institution have room for improvement. Conclusion: While there is significant variation in the purpose and structure of portfolios in the medical schools surveyed, most schools using portfolios reported a high level of engagement with students and faculty.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)886-896
Number of pages11
JournalMedical Teacher
Volume38
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

school
education
evaluation
student
social media
information technology
electronics
innovation
ability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

Chertoff, J., Wright, A., Novak, M., Fantone, J., Fleming, A., Ahmed, T., ... Zaidi, Z. (2016). Status of portfolios in undergraduate medical education in the LCME accredited US medical school. Medical Teacher, 38(9), 886-896. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1114595
Chertoff, Jason ; Wright, Ashleigh ; Novak, Maureen ; Fantone, Joseph ; Fleming, Amy ; Ahmed, Toufeeq ; Green, Marianne ; Kalet, Adina ; Linsenmeyer, Machelle ; Jacobs, Joshua ; Dokter, Christina ; Zaidi, Zareen. / Status of portfolios in undergraduate medical education in the LCME accredited US medical school. In: Medical Teacher. 2016 ; Vol. 38, No. 9. pp. 886-896.
@article{c5dea7f4fdbe4df38be9f5354cf235c6,
title = "Status of portfolios in undergraduate medical education in the LCME accredited US medical school",
abstract = "Aim: We sought to investigate the number of US medical schools utilizing portfolios, the format of portfolios, information technology (IT) innovations, purpose of portfolios and their ability to engage faculty and students. Methods: A 21-question survey regarding portfolios was sent to the 141 LCME-accredited, US medical schools. The response rate was 50{\%} (71/141); 47{\%} of respondents (33/71) reported that their medical school used portfolios in some form. Of those, 7{\%} reported the use of paper-based portfolios and 76{\%} use electronic portfolios. Forty-five percent reported portfolio use for formative evaluation only; 48{\%} for both formative and summative evaluation, and 3{\%} for summative evaluation alone. Results: Seventy-two percent developed a longitudinal, competency-based portfolio. The most common feature of portfolios was reflective writing (79{\%}). Seventy-three percent allow access to the portfolio off-campus, 58{\%} allow usage of tablets and mobile devices, and 9{\%} involve social media within the portfolio. Eighty percent and 69{\%} agreed that the portfolio engaged students and faculty, respectively. Ninety-seven percent reported that the portfolios used at their institution have room for improvement. Conclusion: While there is significant variation in the purpose and structure of portfolios in the medical schools surveyed, most schools using portfolios reported a high level of engagement with students and faculty.",
author = "Jason Chertoff and Ashleigh Wright and Maureen Novak and Joseph Fantone and Amy Fleming and Toufeeq Ahmed and Marianne Green and Adina Kalet and Machelle Linsenmeyer and Joshua Jacobs and Christina Dokter and Zareen Zaidi",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3109/0142159X.2015.1114595",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "886--896",
journal = "Medical Teacher",
issn = "0142-159X",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "9",

}

Chertoff, J, Wright, A, Novak, M, Fantone, J, Fleming, A, Ahmed, T, Green, M, Kalet, A, Linsenmeyer, M, Jacobs, J, Dokter, C & Zaidi, Z 2016, 'Status of portfolios in undergraduate medical education in the LCME accredited US medical school', Medical Teacher, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 886-896. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1114595

Status of portfolios in undergraduate medical education in the LCME accredited US medical school. / Chertoff, Jason; Wright, Ashleigh; Novak, Maureen; Fantone, Joseph; Fleming, Amy; Ahmed, Toufeeq; Green, Marianne; Kalet, Adina; Linsenmeyer, Machelle; Jacobs, Joshua; Dokter, Christina; Zaidi, Zareen.

In: Medical Teacher, Vol. 38, No. 9, 01.09.2016, p. 886-896.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Status of portfolios in undergraduate medical education in the LCME accredited US medical school

AU - Chertoff, Jason

AU - Wright, Ashleigh

AU - Novak, Maureen

AU - Fantone, Joseph

AU - Fleming, Amy

AU - Ahmed, Toufeeq

AU - Green, Marianne

AU - Kalet, Adina

AU - Linsenmeyer, Machelle

AU - Jacobs, Joshua

AU - Dokter, Christina

AU - Zaidi, Zareen

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Aim: We sought to investigate the number of US medical schools utilizing portfolios, the format of portfolios, information technology (IT) innovations, purpose of portfolios and their ability to engage faculty and students. Methods: A 21-question survey regarding portfolios was sent to the 141 LCME-accredited, US medical schools. The response rate was 50% (71/141); 47% of respondents (33/71) reported that their medical school used portfolios in some form. Of those, 7% reported the use of paper-based portfolios and 76% use electronic portfolios. Forty-five percent reported portfolio use for formative evaluation only; 48% for both formative and summative evaluation, and 3% for summative evaluation alone. Results: Seventy-two percent developed a longitudinal, competency-based portfolio. The most common feature of portfolios was reflective writing (79%). Seventy-three percent allow access to the portfolio off-campus, 58% allow usage of tablets and mobile devices, and 9% involve social media within the portfolio. Eighty percent and 69% agreed that the portfolio engaged students and faculty, respectively. Ninety-seven percent reported that the portfolios used at their institution have room for improvement. Conclusion: While there is significant variation in the purpose and structure of portfolios in the medical schools surveyed, most schools using portfolios reported a high level of engagement with students and faculty.

AB - Aim: We sought to investigate the number of US medical schools utilizing portfolios, the format of portfolios, information technology (IT) innovations, purpose of portfolios and their ability to engage faculty and students. Methods: A 21-question survey regarding portfolios was sent to the 141 LCME-accredited, US medical schools. The response rate was 50% (71/141); 47% of respondents (33/71) reported that their medical school used portfolios in some form. Of those, 7% reported the use of paper-based portfolios and 76% use electronic portfolios. Forty-five percent reported portfolio use for formative evaluation only; 48% for both formative and summative evaluation, and 3% for summative evaluation alone. Results: Seventy-two percent developed a longitudinal, competency-based portfolio. The most common feature of portfolios was reflective writing (79%). Seventy-three percent allow access to the portfolio off-campus, 58% allow usage of tablets and mobile devices, and 9% involve social media within the portfolio. Eighty percent and 69% agreed that the portfolio engaged students and faculty, respectively. Ninety-seven percent reported that the portfolios used at their institution have room for improvement. Conclusion: While there is significant variation in the purpose and structure of portfolios in the medical schools surveyed, most schools using portfolios reported a high level of engagement with students and faculty.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84949549123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84949549123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1114595

DO - 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1114595

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 886

EP - 896

JO - Medical Teacher

JF - Medical Teacher

SN - 0142-159X

IS - 9

ER -