H L Copeland1, M G Hewson. 1. Division of Education, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio 44195, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Instruments that rate teaching effectiveness provide both positive and negative feedback to clinician-educators, helping them improve their teaching. The authors developed the Clinical Teaching Effectiveness Instrument, which was theory-based and generic across their entire academic medical center, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. They tested it for reliability, validity, and usability. METHOD: In 1997, using an iterative qualitative development process involving key stakeholders, the authors developed an institution-wide instrument to routinely evaluate clinical faculty. The resulting instrument has 15 questions that use a five-point evaluation scale. The instrument, which was administered to medical students, residents, and fellows over a 20-month period, produced data that were rigorously tested for instrument characteristics, reliability, criterion-related and content validity, and usability. RESULTS: This instrument, implemented in all departments across the institution, produced data on a total of 711 clinician-educators. Correlation coefficients among the items were high (.57 to .77). The scores were reliable (g coefficient of 0.935), and the instrument had both content and criterion-related validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Cleveland Clinic's Clinical Teaching Effectiveness Instrument is reliable and valid, as well as usable. It can be used as an evaluation tool for a wide variety of clinical teaching settings.
PURPOSE: Instruments that rate teaching effectiveness provide both positive and negative feedback to clinician-educators, helping them improve their teaching. The authors developed the Clinical Teaching Effectiveness Instrument, which was theory-based and generic across their entire academic medical center, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. They tested it for reliability, validity, and usability. METHOD: In 1997, using an iterative qualitative development process involving key stakeholders, the authors developed an institution-wide instrument to routinely evaluate clinical faculty. The resulting instrument has 15 questions that use a five-point evaluation scale. The instrument, which was administered to medical students, residents, and fellows over a 20-month period, produced data that were rigorously tested for instrument characteristics, reliability, criterion-related and content validity, and usability. RESULTS: This instrument, implemented in all departments across the institution, produced data on a total of 711 clinician-educators. Correlation coefficients among the items were high (.57 to .77). The scores were reliable (g coefficient of 0.935), and the instrument had both content and criterion-related validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Cleveland Clinic's Clinical Teaching Effectiveness Instrument is reliable and valid, as well as usable. It can be used as an evaluation tool for a wide variety of clinical teaching settings.
Authors: Thomas J Beckman; Amit K Ghosh; David A Cook; Patricia J Erwin; Jayawant N Mandrekar Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Susannah M Wyles; Danilo Miskovic; Zhifang Ni; Ara W Darzi; Roland M Valori; Mark G Coleman; George B Hanna Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-06-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Andrew G Hill; Sanket Srinivasa; Susan J Hawken; Mark Barrow; Susan E Farrell; John Hattie; Tzu-Chieh Yu Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2012-03
Authors: Cornelia R M G Fluit; Sanneke Bolhuis; Richard Grol; Roland Laan; Michel Wensing Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Teresa A O'Sullivan; Carmen Lau; Mitul Patel; Chi Mac; Janelle Krueger; Jennifer Danielson; Stanley S Weber Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2015-12-25 Impact factor: 2.047