Biomedical Engineering Key Content Survey - Results from Round One of a Delphi Study
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 23

Biomedical Engineering Key Content Survey - Results from Round One of a Delphi Study PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 49 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Biomedical Engineering Key Content Survey - Results from Round One of a Delphi Study David W. Gatchell and Robert A. Linsenmeier VaNTH ERC for Bioengineering Educational Technologies and Northwestern University Whitaker Foundation Biomedical Engineering Educational Summit March, 2005.

Download Presentation

Biomedical Engineering Key Content Survey - Results from Round One of a Delphi Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Biomedical engineering key content survey results from round one of a delphi study

Biomedical Engineering Key Content Survey - Results from Round One of a Delphi Study

David W. Gatchell and Robert A. Linsenmeier

VaNTH ERC for Bioengineering Educational Technologies

and Northwestern University

Whitaker Foundation Biomedical Engineering Educational Summit

March, 2005

Supported by NSF EEC 9876363


Why conduct a bme key content survey motivation and potential benefits

Why conduct a BME key content survey? Motivation and potential benefits

  • Motivation

    • Establish an identityfor undergraduate Biomedical Engineers

    • Improve communication between academic BME programs and industry

      • Academia – Inform industry of the knowledge, skills and training of BMEs

      • Industry – Inform academia of the knowledge, skills and training expected

  • Benefits

    • More industrial positions for BMEs

    • Each graduate does not have to explain curriculum

    • Recognition that BME degree is ideal preparation for at least some industrial positions.


Biomedical engineering key content survey results from round one of a delphi study

Delphi study - Overview

  • In General:

    • An iterative process for collecting knowledge from, and disseminating results to, a group of experts

    • Four steps (repeat steps #2 and #3 to attempt to reach consensus)

      • Develop a set of questions on a topic.

      • Experts give opinions on topics; suggest new ideas that were missed

      • Explore and evaluate inconsistencies uncovered in step 2

      • Disseminate findings, or revise questions and go back to 2

    • Key point is that experts remain anonymous

  • Our Study: A set of three surveys

    • Round 0: Select concepts from VaNTH taxonomies; reviewed by domain experts

    • Round 1: Survey BME industrial representatives and faculty. Asked participants to rate relevance of concepts important for ALL undergrads in BME, and make suggestions of concepts missed

    • Round 2: Refine and update list of concepts and resubmit to the above groups for further evaluation

    • Round 3: Question proficiencies expected (e.g., using Bloom’s Taxonomy)


Overview of the key content survey round one

Overview of the key content survey, round one

  • Utilized an online survey tool to query ~274 concepts:

    • Eleven bioengineering domains (including design)

    • Physiology, cellular biology, molecular biology and genetics, biochemistry

    • Mathematical modeling, statistics, general engineering skills (e.g., computer programming)

  • Survey divided in two parts, each with half the domains:

    • Total number of participants, n = 136

      • Part one: Academia – 42, Industry – 25

      • Part two: Academia – 35, Industry – 23

  • Participants were asked to:

    • Provide demographic information

      • Employer, Job Title, Responsibilities, Years of Experience

    • Self-assess level of expertise in each domain (e.g., Biomechanics)

    • Rate the importance/relevance of each concept to a BME core curriculum

    • Suggest concepts that had not been included


Overview of the key content survey

Overview of the key content survey

  • Concepts rated on 5 point Likert Scale

    • 1- very unimportant for all BMEs

    • 5 – very important for all BMEs

  • Mean ratings across concepts similar for industry and academia

    • Academia (n=77) mean and SD rating: 3.71 ± 0.52

    • Industry (n=48) mean and SD rating: 3.75 ± 0.41

  • Domains Investigated:

    • Bioinformatics, bioinstrumentation, biomaterials, biomechanics, biooptics, biosignals and systems, medical imaging, thermodynamics, transport (fluid, heat, mass)

    • Cell biology, biochemistry, molecular biology and genetics, physiology

    • Statistics, general engineering


Some concepts included as ringers expected to have low rating

Some concepts included as “Ringers” -Expected to have low rating

All except unsteady state mass diffusion equation met expectations


Some concepts included in more than one domain to check consistency of response

Some concepts included in more than one domain to check consistency of response

  • Two values shown are ratings when concepts are included in different domains

  • Generally good agreement, but rating sometimes depended on context


Biomedical engineering key content survey results from round one of a delphi study

Results: Highest rated eng’g concepts – Academia

Orange concepts are from statistics and general engineering


Biomedical engineering key content survey results from round one of a delphi study

Results: Highest rated eng’g concepts – Industry

Orange concepts are from statistics and general engineering


Results lowest rated concepts some from ringers

Results: lowest rated concepts some from “Ringers”


Results industry academia agreement distribution of mean ratings of all concepts

Results: Industry - Academia agreementDistribution of mean ratings of all concepts

  • Most concepts rated highly. Few ringers in survey.

  • All traditional domains had some highly rated concepts.

  • Cutoff level for inclusion in recommended undergrad curriculum still to be determined on basis of further analysis and round two.


Results industry academia agreement differences in means a i

Results: Industry – Academia AgreementDifferences in means (A-I)

Design


Results discrepancies in design concepts

Results: Discrepancies in design concepts


Results a comparison of general engineering concepts

Results: A comparison of general engineering concepts


Biomedical engineering key content survey results from round one of a delphi study

Results: Biology Domains

  • Good agreement on the whole

  • All biology areas important, but industry sees molecular biology as being more important than academia

  • Bioinformatics generally scored low, but industry feels that it is more important than academia does


Results largest biology discrepancies

Results: Largest biology discrepancies


Biomedical engineering key content survey results from round one of a delphi study

Results: Physiology (82 concepts)

  • Very large span within domain

  • Generally good agreement

  • Cardiovascular, neural, cellular physiology concepts rated highly

  • Digestive, renal, parts of endocrine rated low


Results largest physiology discrepancies between academia and industry

Results: Largest physiology discrepancies between academia and industry


Results should the following foundational courses be required

Results: Should the following foundational courses be required?

Agreement that second semester organic chemistry is not universally required; some uncertainty about one semester


Universities represented in round one of the survey

Universities represented in round one of the survey

Arizona State University*

Binghampton University

Boston University*

Columbia University

Devry Institute of Tech

Duke University*

Florida International University

IIT

Johns Hopkins University*

Marquette University*

Milwaukee SOE*

MIT

NJIT

NC State University*

Northwestern University*

RPI*

RHIT

Stanford University

Syracuse University*

  • SUNY – Stony Brook

  • Tulane University*

  • University of Akron*

  • University of Cincinnati

  • University of Illinois – UC*

  • University of Iowa*

  • University of Memphis

  • University of Michigan

  • University of Minnesota*

  • University of Pittsburgh*

  • University of Rochester*

  • University of Texas – Austin*

  • University of Toledo*

  • Vanderbilt University*

  • VCU*

*ABET Accredited – 21 of 37 Accredited Programs Participated


Companies and industrial expertise represented in round one of the survey

Companies and industrial expertise represented in round one of the survey

Companies Represented

Abbott Laboratories

AstraZeneca

Baxter Healthcare

Boston Scientific

Cardiodynamics

Cleveland Medical Devices

Datasciences, International

Dentigenix, Inc.

Depuy, a Johnson and Johnson Co.

ESTECH Least Invasive Cardiac Surgery

GE Healthcare

Intel, Corp.

Materialise, Inc.

Medtronic, Inc.

Tyco Healthcare

Underwriter Laboratories

Areas of Expertise

Biomaterials

Biomechanics

Bioinformatics

Bioinstrumentation

BioMEMS

Biotransport

Cellular Biomechanics

Computational Modeling

Control Systems Engineering

Fluid Mechanics

Medical Devices

Medical Imaging

Medical Optics

Signal Processing


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • More analysis is required to:

    • Investigate variation of opinions for individual topics

    • Correlate ratings with expertise levels

    • Eliminate contextual bias

    • Incorporate concepts omitted from first round

  • BUT, preliminary results have shown that:

    • “Consistency checks” validate data

    • Generally good agreement between industry and academia

    • Industry and academia disagree on a significant number of Design concepts

    • Industry highly values knowledge of statistics and probability

    • Core biology should include all domains assessed


Conclusions1

Conclusions

  • Remaining issues

    • Determine level of significance for deciding what concepts can be dropped from core curriculum

    • Determine significance of differences between industry and academia

    • Launch second round – by summer

  • Full matrix of results by concept will be posted on www.vanth.org/curriculum


  • Login