Search

Self-efficacy, the internal belief that one can perform a specific task successfully, influences behavior. To promote critical appraisal of medical literature, rheumatology training programs should foster both competence and self-efficacy for critical appraisal. This study aimed to investigate whether select items from the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), an instrument measuring clinical research self-efficacy, could be used to measure critical appraisal self-efficacy (CASE).One hundred twenty-five trainees from 33 rheumatology programs were sent a questionnaire that included two sections of the CRAI. Six CRAI items relevant to CASE were identified a priori; responses generated a CASE score (total score range 0-10; higher = greater confidence in one's ability to perform a specific task successfully). CASE scores' internal structure and relation to domain-concordant variables were analyzed.Questionnaires were completed by 112 of 125 (89.6%) trainees. CASE scores ranged from 0.5 to 8.2. The six CRAI items contributing to the CASE score demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and unidimensionality. Criterion validity was supported by the findings that participants with higher CASE scores rated their epidemiology and biostatistics understanding higher than that of peers (P 0.0001) and were more likely to report referring to studies to answer clinical questions (odds ratio 2.47, 95% confidence interval 1.41-4.33; P = 0.002). The correlation of CASE scores with percentage of questions answered correctly was only moderate, supporting discriminant validity.The six-item CASE instrument demonstrated content validity, internal consistency, discriminative capability, and criterion validity, including correlation with self-reported behavior, supporting its potential as a useful measure of critical appraisal self-efficacy.

Expanding on academic continuity planning research in higher education, this article presents two models for transitioning hands-on coursework online. Integrating precedent, case study, and autoethnography methods, the article analyzes higher education leadership and faculty decision-making within the context of the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic at The College of Fine Arts at The University of Texas at Austin. When COVID-19 closed campuses worldwide, 98% of over 1,200 College of Fine Arts class sections were happening in-person; most of those courses required hands-on, applied learning, which is challenging to translate online. With few exceptions, these courses not only continued, but they also demonstrated academic resilience—the ability to survive, adapt, and grow. Academic continuity and planning researchers have reached consensus that institutions need to support high-quality online coursework to effectively manage disruptions; the problem presented in this article is that extant academic continuity models too often conceptualize faculty, students, and staff as a single user with a set of common characteristics and needs related to online learning. Such generalized conceptualizations lead to academic continuity planning strategies and tactics that do not account for the variegated complexities involved in online hands-on education.

This chapter explores how one graduate-level seminar incorporated technology and insights from the science of learning to improve the delivery and assessment of course content. Drawing on the case study, “Technology and Innovation in Higher Education,” an elective seminar for master's and doctoral students taught at The University of Texas at Austin (2015-2017), the authors discuss the benefits of project-based learning, retrieval-based learning strategies, and the use of diverse teams in educational settings. The authors consider how technology was used in this blended-learning/hybrid course to more efficiently and effectively achieve the learning goals. The chapter concludes with practical recommendations for instructors who seek to incorporate insights from the science of learning in their graduate courses.