Kristi J Ferguson1, Clarence D Kreiter. 1. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA. kristi-ferguson@uiowa.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Attempts to validate peer evaluation and to incorporate it into the curriculum have met with mixed results. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of peer evaluations in a Year 1 case-based learning course. METHODS: As part of the formal grading process for the course, all faculty facilitators (n = 69 over 3 years) completed a 12-item evaluation form for each student at the conclusion of each case. As part of a course assignment, students (n = 415 over 3 years) completed brief evaluations of their peers based on 2 criteria: the overall quality of written reports, and participation in group discussion. In addition, students provided anonymous feedback in the written end-of-course evaluation about the peer evaluation process, and faculty were asked to comment during the wrap-up luncheon for small-group facilitators. RESULTS: Response rates for the 3 Year 1 medical student classes ranged from 95% to 99%. The average number of peer evaluations completed for each student was 4.6. The G coefficients for the rater-nested-within-person generalisability study were 0.52 for written reports and 0.60 for group participation; both were based on an average of 4-5 ratings. Correlation coefficients between peer and faculty evaluations in each of the 3 consecutive years of the course ranged from 0.46 to 0.63; all were statistically significant at P < 0.001. A correction for attenuation suggests that the true score correlation between faculty and peer measures is near 1.0. DISCUSSION: This study provides strong evidence that facilitator and peer ratings measure similar constructs and shows that, even among Year 1 medical students, peer evaluation can be conducted in a valid manner.
OBJECTIVES: Attempts to validate peer evaluation and to incorporate it into the curriculum have met with mixed results. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of peer evaluations in a Year 1 case-based learning course. METHODS: As part of the formal grading process for the course, all faculty facilitators (n = 69 over 3 years) completed a 12-item evaluation form for each student at the conclusion of each case. As part of a course assignment, students (n = 415 over 3 years) completed brief evaluations of their peers based on 2 criteria: the overall quality of written reports, and participation in group discussion. In addition, students provided anonymous feedback in the written end-of-course evaluation about the peer evaluation process, and faculty were asked to comment during the wrap-up luncheon for small-group facilitators. RESULTS: Response rates for the 3 Year 1 medical student classes ranged from 95% to 99%. The average number of peer evaluations completed for each student was 4.6. The G coefficients for the rater-nested-within-person generalisability study were 0.52 for written reports and 0.60 for group participation; both were based on an average of 4-5 ratings. Correlation coefficients between peer and faculty evaluations in each of the 3 consecutive years of the course ranged from 0.46 to 0.63; all were statistically significant at P < 0.001. A correction for attenuation suggests that the true score correlation between faculty and peer measures is near 1.0. DISCUSSION: This study provides strong evidence that facilitator and peer ratings measure similar constructs and shows that, even among Year 1 medical students, peer evaluation can be conducted in a valid manner.