Table 3.

Residents’ satisfaction with the rotations: Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

ITEMINPATIENT-AMBULATORY GROUPAMBULATORY GROUPT TESTDEGREES OF FREEDOMP VALUE
NMEAN (SD)NMEAN (SD)
I was given an appropriate orientation to this rotation254.60 (0.645)164.44 (0.629).79439.432
Main learning objectives were clearly described and followed254.32 (0.690)164.31 (0.602).03639.972
The clinical experience allowed for the learning objectives to be met254.36 (0.907)164.44 (0.629)−.29839.767
A variety of patient problems representative of the discipline were seen254.36 (0.995)164.56 (0.629)−.72539.473
The rotation was well organized with efficient use of time254.04 (0.978)164.25 (0.931)−.68339.499
There were sufficient opportunities to participate in patient care and management254.32 (0.900)154.53 (0.640)−.80338.427
The length of the rotation was appropriate254.00 (0.957)164.62 (0.719)−2.23539.031
I was given support and positive reinforcement254.68 (0.557)164.69 (0.704)−.03839.970
I was given support by nursing and ancillary staff254.60 (0.645)164.56 (0.727).17339.864
Textbooks, literature resources, and reading assignments were recommended to me264.28 (0.737)154.33 (0.976)−.19638.846
This rotation was educationally beneficial254.48 (0.770)164.69 (0.793)−.83239.411
Considering all aspects of this rotation, how would you rate its overall effectiveness?254.28 (0.843)164.44 (0.629)−.64139.525