Assessment in Action

A.T. Still University of Health Sciences: Project Description

Page 1


Primary Outcome Examined (select one or more)

Student Learning: Assignment

(No) Student Learning: Course

(No) Student Learning: Major

(No) Student Learning: Degree

(No) Student Engagement

Student Success

(No) Academic Intimacy/Rapport

(No) Enrollment

(No) Retention

(No) Completion

(No) Graduation

(No) Articulation

(No) Graduates' Career Success

(No) Testing (e.g., GRE, MCAT, LSAT, CAAP, CLA, MAPP)

(No) Other (please describe)

Primary Library Factor Examined (select one or more)

(No) Instruction

(No) Instruction: Games

Instruction: One Shot

(No) Instruction: Course Embedded

(No) Instruction: Self-Paced Tutorials

(No) Reference

(No) Educational Role (other than reference or instruction)

(No) Space, Physical

Discovery (library resources integrated in institutional web and other information portals)

(No) Discovery (library resource guides)

(No) Discovery (from preferred user starting points)

(No) Collections (quality, depth, diversity, format or currency)

(No) Personnel (number and quality)

(No) Other (please describe)

Student Population (select one or more)

(No) Undergraduate



(No) Graduating

(No) Pre-College/Developmental/Basic Skills

(No) Other (please describe)

Discipline (select one or more)

(No) Arts

(No) Humanities

(No) Social Sciences

(No) Natural Sciences (i.e., space, earth, life, chemistry or physics)

(No) Formal Sciences (i.e., computer science, logic, mathematics, statistics or systems science)

Professions/Applied Sciences

(No) English Composition

(No) General Education

(No) Information Literacy Credit Course

(No) Other (please describe)

AiA Team Members (select one or more)

Assessment Office

Institutional Research

Teaching Faculty

(No) Writing Center

(No) Information/Academic Technology

(No) Student Affairs

(No) Campus Administrator

Library Administrator

Other Librarian

(No) Other (please describe)

Page 2


Methods and Tools (select one or more)

(No) Survey

(No) Interviews

(No) Focus Group(s)

(No) Observation

Pre/Post Test

(No) Rubric

(No) Other (please describe)

Direct Data Type (select one or more)

(No) Student Portfolio

(No) Research Paper/Project

(No) Class Assignment (other than research paper/project)

(No) Other (please describe)

Indirect Data Type (select one or more)

Test Scores

(No) GPA

(No) Degree Completion Rate

(No) Retention Rate

(No) Other (please describe)

Page 3

Executive Summary (150 words open)

  • How does the project align with your institution’s priorities and needs?
  • Why did you choose the outcome and library factor as areas to examine?
  • Why was the team composition appropriate?

  1. Our project measures the impact of information literacy sessions on the students' ability to choose quality sources to obtain information to unknown answers to clinical questions. Teaching evidence based medicine skills (information literacy in health sciences) is a key directive among all our university's key attributes that we want students to learn.

    We chose the to measure our discovery tool's ability to contribute to EBM instruction. We implemented it in December 2013 and wanted to test its effectiveness. We quickly found that it was only a part of what we wanted to measure and decided on a broader EBM intervention with instruction on the discovery tool included in the session.

    Our team was composed of the key resource people who were able to guide me through the research process, so it was very well supported. I want to repeat this assessment this year with a different method and compare the results.

  • What are the significant contributions of your project?
  • What was learned about assessing the library’s impact on student learning and success?
  • What was learned about creating or contributing to a culture of assessment on campus?
  • What, if any, are the significant findings of your project?

  1. This project seems to be the first to measure source quality in a medical environment. We can now make the argument with data to programs in our health sciences library should include EBM instruction within their program to improve the choice of information sources. Students' ability to find correct information improved, but not significantly. The improvement of source quality choice and accuracy should allow students to achieve better results and provide better quality health care.

  • What will you change as a result of what you learned (– e.g., institutional activities, library functions or practices, personal/professional practice, other)?
  • How does this project contribute to current, past, or future assessment activities on your campus?

  1. We made three discoveries from this project. First, answering clinical questions is a limitation of our discovery tool. We have made clinical discovery more prominent in our discovery system. Second, students learned the importance of source quality
    The analysis yielded a significant improvement in the selection of source selection after our EBM instruction session. The median post-test was equivalent to the 75 percentile pre-test. Lastly, we will change how we teach EBM. We postulate from student feedback that a prerecorded lecture with more practical hands-on practice should yield even better results.

    Formal EBM instruction has dropped off in the majority of our schools and programs. This data can start to make the case that it is an important element that needs to be discreetly incorporated in the students' education.

Please list any articles published, presentations given, URL of project website, and team leader contact details.

    Hal Bright
    5850 E Still Circle
    Mesa, AZ 85254


AiA_poster_template_-_4th_round_for_preview_print.pdf EBM Instruction – Effects on Accuracy and Source Quality