Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

BARLEV DAN M. MD; LAUTIN, EVERETT M. MD; AMIS, E. STEPHEN Jr. MD; LERNER, MARILYN E. MD; Novelline, Robert A. Editor
Investigative Radiology: January 1994
Perspectives in Radiologic Education: PDF Only
Buy

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The nature and extent of medical school radiology clerkships were quantified.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent to 126 medical school radiology departments in the United States. Queries were made regarding length and requirements for clerkships, methods of teaching, methods of student evaluation, and responsibility for these functions.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven responses (45%) were received. Methods of student teaching varied, but most departments relied on readout sessions, watching procedures, “show-and-tell” sessions, didactic slide and film presentations, and various other methods. Emphasis of most student clerkships was placed on teaching imaging disease processes rather than on how to read x-rays. A written examination was most commonly used to evaluate student performance. Most teaching was done by fulltime faculty, with lesser contributions from part-time faculty, fellows, and residents.

METHODS

Emphasis of most student clerkships was placed on teaching imaging disease processes rather than on how to read x-rays. A written examination was most commonly used to evaluate student performance. Most teaching was done by full-time faculty, with lesser contributions from part-time faculty, fellows, and residents.

CONCLUSIONS

The nature and extent of medical school radiology clerkships in departments responding to the survey varied, but most conformed, at least in part, to standards based on survey results and the published literature.

© Lippincott-Raven Publishers.