RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To develop and test the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a 360-degree evaluation to measure radiology resident competence in professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An evaluation form with 10 Likert-type items related to professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills was completed by a resident, supervising radiologist and patient after resident-patient interactions related to breast biopsy procedures. Residents were also evaluated by faculty, using an end-of-rotation global rating form. Residents, faculty, and technologists were queried regarding their reaction to the assessments after a 7-month period. RESULTS: Fifty-six complete 360-degree data sets (range, 2-14 per resident) and seven rotational evaluations for seven residents were analyzed and compared. Internal consistency reliability estimates were 0.85, 0.86, and 0.87 for resident, patient, and faculty 360-degree evaluations, respectively. Correlations between resident-versus-patient, resident-versus-faculty, and patient-versus-faculty ratings for the 56 interactions were -0.06 (P =.64), 0.31 (P <.02), and 0.45 (P <.0006), respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients approached significant correlation (0.70) between the faculty global rating and patient 360-degree scores (P =.08) but not with faculty 360-degree scores. Residents and faculty felt that completing the 360-degree forms was easy, but the requirement for faculty presence during the consent process was burdensome. CONCLUSION: Results from this pilot study suggest that self, faculty, and patient evaluations of resident performance constitutes a valid and reliable assessment of resident competence. Additional data are needed to determine whether the 360-degree assessment should be incorporated into residency programs and how frequently the assessment should be performed. Requiring only a specified number of assessments per rotation would make the process less burdensome for residents and faculty.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To develop and test the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a 360-degree evaluation to measure radiology resident competence in professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An evaluation form with 10 Likert-type items related to professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills was completed by a resident, supervising radiologist and patient after resident-patient interactions related to breast biopsy procedures. Residents were also evaluated by faculty, using an end-of-rotation global rating form. Residents, faculty, and technologists were queried regarding their reaction to the assessments after a 7-month period. RESULTS: Fifty-six complete 360-degree data sets (range, 2-14 per resident) and seven rotational evaluations for seven residents were analyzed and compared. Internal consistency reliability estimates were 0.85, 0.86, and 0.87 for resident, patient, and faculty 360-degree evaluations, respectively. Correlations between resident-versus-patient, resident-versus-faculty, and patient-versus-faculty ratings for the 56 interactions were -0.06 (P =.64), 0.31 (P <.02), and 0.45 (P <.0006), respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients approached significant correlation (0.70) between the faculty global rating and patient 360-degree scores (P =.08) but not with faculty 360-degree scores. Residents and faculty felt that completing the 360-degree forms was easy, but the requirement for faculty presence during the consent process was burdensome. CONCLUSION: Results from this pilot study suggest that self, faculty, and patient evaluations of resident performance constitutes a valid and reliable assessment of resident competence. Additional data are needed to determine whether the 360-degree assessment should be incorporated into residency programs and how frequently the assessment should be performed. Requiring only a specified number of assessments per rotation would make the process less burdensome for residents and faculty.
Authors: Ramesh S Iyer; David W Swenson; Neil Anand; Einat Blumfield; Tushar Chandra; Govind B Chavhan; Thomas R Goodman; Naeem Khan; Michael M Moore; Thang D Ngo; Christina L Sammet; Raymond W Sze; Chido D Vera; A Luana Stanescu Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2019-03-29