375 trainees participated in the BRI Program in 2018, 331participated in 2017, and 385participated in the 2016 program.
52 faculty and post-docs volunteered their time in 2018 to lead 82 discussion groups
2018 BRI OVERALL LECTURE SUMMARY |
|
|
||
Conflict |
Data |
Peer |
Research Misconduct |
Responsible Authorship |
N/A |
4.53 |
5.53 |
4.71 |
4.59 |
lecture cancelled |
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
Scale of 1-6 (1=lowest; 6=highest) |
|||
|
The lecture as a whole was: |
|||
|
The relevance and usefulness of the lecture content were: |
|||
|
The speaker's contribution to the lecture content was: |
|||
|
The speaker stimulated interest in the topic: |
|||
The lecture as a whole was: |
||||
N/A |
4.38 |
5.38 |
4.71 |
4.68 |
The relevance and usefulness of the lecture content were: |
||||
N/A |
4.50 |
5.56 |
4.36 |
4.50 |
The speaker's contribution to the lecture content was: |
||||
N/A |
4.75 |
5.75 |
4.93 |
4.61 |
The speaker stimulated interest in the topic: |
||||
N/A |
4.50 |
5.44 |
4.86 |
4.57 |
2018 OVERALL DISCUSSION GROUP SUMMARY:
|
|
*The discussion group format was effective |
4.51 |
*The discussion leader was informed |
4.68 |
*The discussion leader was a helpful and effective facilitator |
4.64 |
*The material presented was interesting to me |
4.38 |
*The material was relevant and useful to my field or specific needs |
4.35 |
*The cases elicited productive discussion. |
4.47 |
*The discussion brought out important ethical issues related to the topic |
4.53 |
*I felt comfortable participating in this discussion. |
4.63 |
*Most participants contributed adequately to the discussion. |
4.39 |
*Most participants were prepared to participate in the discussion |
4.43 |
Scale of 1-5 (5 being highest)
Most of the 668 participants provided feedback. These data show that the discussion groups
were very well received by the trainees: the average score for each question requiring numerical
feedback averaged over 4.5 on a 5.0 scale.