Student Evaluations of the Courses in Medical Psychology at the Medical Department of the RWTH Aachen: A Three-Year Report

Anne Scherer, Thomas Forkmann, Sandra Sudmann, Siegfried Gauggel

Dean’s Office, Medical Faculty, Rheinisch-Westf?lische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology,University Hospital of the Rheinisch-Westf?lische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

DOI: 10.4236/ojmp.2012.14010                

Abstract

Introduction: With the introduction of a new curriculum “Modellstudiengang Medizin” in Aachen, the education in medical psychology was also restructured. This paper presents data from the students’ evaluations of the Basic Course in Medical Psychology and the new teaching format “Systemblock Psyche” over a three-year time span. Method: All students were asked to evaluate the courses anonymously online. Effect sizes [1] were calculated to compare acceptance of the different course types and also changes across time. Results: Both the Basic Course in Medical Psychology and the Systemblock Psyche were rated as “good” to “satisfactory” and were in their overall acceptance comparable to other courses and system blocks. Continuous improvement in acceptance was found for the Basic Course (d = 0.30 - 0.57). The Systemblock Psyche received varying evaluations but achieved higher scores on comprehensibility (d = 0.20) and communication among teachers (d = 0.34) than other system blocks. On the other hand, students rated the education in medical psychology as less relevant than other courses (d = 0.28 and 0.77, respectively). Conclusion: Overall, the acceptance rating was satisfactory and comparable to other evaluation studies conducted in earlier curricula. However, ratings of the relevance of the courses in medical psychology were disappointing and indicate the difficulty of teaching a biopsychosocial model to medical students.

Keywords

Teaching Evaluation; Education in Medical Psychology; Modellstudiengang; Systemblock

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	L. V. Hedges and I. Olkin, “Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis,” Academic Press, Orlando, 1985.
[2]	J. Noth, “Der Aachener Modellstudiengang Medizin,” Forschung & Lehre, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2009, p. 352.
[3]	S. Beckers, J. Bickenback, M. Fries, N. Hoffmann, B. Classen-Linke, B. Killersreiter, R. Wainwright, R. Kuhlen and R. Rossaint, “Meet the AIX-PERTS. Der Notfallmedizinische Start in den Modellstudiengang Humanmedizin am Universit?tsklinikum Aachen,” Der Anaesthesist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 2004, pp. 561-569.
[4]	B. Strau? and V. K?llner, “Die Neue Approbationsordnung: Eine Chance für psychosoziale F?cher,” Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Medizinische Psychologie, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2003, pp. 43-46. doi:10.1055/s-2003-36967
[5]	J. Cohen, “Statistical Power for the Behavioural Science,” 2nd Edition, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1985.
[6]	G. A. Fava and N. Sonino, “The Biopsychosocial Model Thirty Years Later,” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Vol. 77, No. 2, 2008, pp. 126-127.
[7]	U. Strehl and A. Kübler, “Projektbericht Seminar Medizinische Psychologie,” Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2010, pp. 90-93.
[8]	S. Fischbeck, “Das Mainzer Unterrichtskonzept der Medizinischen Psychologie und Medizinischen Soziologie,” Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2006, pp. 21-26.
[9]	O. Decker and K. Rockenbauch, “Das Neue Lehrkonzept für Medizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie an der Universit?t Leipzig—Erste Eindrücke und Evaluation,” Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2006, pp. 27-30.