@article{oai:nsg.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004730,
 author = {坂井, さなえ and 木下, 直彦 and 柴山, 純一 and 石上, 和男 and 瀧口, 徹 and Sakai, Sanae and Kinoshita, Naohiko and Shibayama, Junichi and Ishigami, Kazuo and Takiguchi, Toru},
 issue = {2},
 journal = {新潟医療福祉学会誌, 1346-8774},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {application/pdf, 論文(Article), 診療情報管理士の主要業務であり資格試験に課される疾病記録の電子情報化コーディング技術の教育法に関して、基礎重視学習と難問重視学習のいずれが効果的かを介入研究で検証した。対象は、同試験で合格した大学生37名で、事前テスト結果に基づき平均値マッチング法により2群に均等に振り分け、Ⅰ群は40分間の基礎重視講義、Ⅱ群は同時間で難問重視講義を行った。次に、新作の模擬試験を実施し、Ⅰ群とⅡ群の得点差の比較をT1：通常評価法（正解のみ評価）、T2：解答された問題の正解のみ、T3：解答から不正解を減点、の3種類の評価法を4段階の問題難易度別に行った。T1では、難易度1、4で有意差なし。難易度2、3では100点換算でⅠ群の平均値が5～6点有意に高い結果を示した。T2では、Ⅰ群とⅡ群の差の関係は逆転した。すなわち、難易度1、2では有意差がなく、難易度3、4ではⅡ群が6～7点高く高度に有意、T3ではⅠ群とⅡ群の差は難易度別の4段階でいずれも有意差なしであった。難易度4では、Ⅰ群とⅡ群はいずれも－22～26点であったことから、短時間教育で判断する限り、難易度に幅がある通常の問題形式に対しては基礎を重視した問題を教育する方が、難問を重視した教育方法より有効であると判断された。, Disease record coding skills are subject to a qualification examination and are the main task of health information managers（HIMs）. An intervention study was composed of two lecture methods: LEC1 and LEC2. LEC1 emphasized fundamental knowledge of the skillup coding technique, called easy-to-difficult learning（EtoD_L）. LEC2 emphasized difficult knowledge （DtoE_L: difficult-to-easy learning）. This study aims to determine which method is effective. Participants were 37 students who had passed the HIM qualification examination and enrolled in the Health Informatics department of a university. Participants were alternately extracted based on pre-test scores and distributed to LEC1 or LEC2 evenly by mean matching. LEC1 involved EtoD_L while LEC2 involved DtoE_L for 40 minutes each. Next, the newly prepared test was given to both groups, and the score differences were compared using three evaluative methods: T1, T2, and T3. T1 was a normal evaluation method counting only correct answers. T2 was the sum of the correct answer rates （%） excluding unanswered questions. T3 was minus of sum of incorrect answers from T1. Comparisons were made by difficulty level in 4 stages. T1 showed no significant difference in difficulty levels （dlev） 1 and 4 （dlev1 and dlev4）. The average values of LEC1 in dlev2 and dlev3 converted to 100 points were significantly higher than those of LEC2. In T2, the relationship was reversed; there were no significant differences in dlev1 and dlev2 while LEC2 values in dlev3 and dlev4 were highly significant by 6 to 7 points. In T3, the differences were not significant in any of the four difficulty levels. In dlev4, both LEC1 and LEC2 were minus 22 to 26 points.Judging by short-term education, EtoD_L is more effective than DtoE_L.},
 pages = {36--43},
 title = {診療情報管理士（HIM）認定試験のコーディング科目得点率向上のための効率的学習法に関する介入研究},
 volume = {18},
 year = {2019}
}