'What would my peers say?' Comparing the opinion-based method with the prediction-based method in Continuing Medical...

Area of Science:

• Medical Education
• Survey Methodology
• Continuing Medical Education (CME)

Background:

• Traditional Likert scale surveys in medical education suffer from low response rates, limiting their usefulness.
• A peer-prediction method showed promise in undergraduate medical education by requiring fewer respondents.
• The prediction-based method's validity in continuing medical education (CME) settings with diverse participants was unestablished.

Purpose of the Study:

• To validate the prediction-based survey method for evaluating continuing medical education (CME) courses.
• To compare the efficiency and outcomes of prediction-based versus traditional opinion-based surveys in CME.

Main Methods:

• 597 CME participants were randomized into opinion-based (n=300) or prediction-based (n=297) survey groups.
• An iterative algorithm determined the minimum respondents for stable average results in both methods.
• Mean and distribution of scores were compared between the two survey approaches.

Main Results:

• The prediction-based method required fewer respondents to achieve stable average results compared to the opinion-based method.
• Overall response rate was 47%.
• While mean scores were similar, the prediction-based method yielded fewer extreme responses.

Conclusions:

• The prediction-based survey method is validated for evaluating continuing medical education (CME).
• This method offers a more efficient approach to gathering feedback in CME.
• Practical implementation considerations for the prediction-based method are provided.