OBJECTIVE: The development and testing of a questionnaire to enable anesthesiology residents to assess the training qualities oftheir clinician-educators. DESIGN: Questionnaire. METHODS: The taskforce drafted a questionnaire based on the 26 item Stanford Faculty Development Program questionnaire (SFDP26) and adapted to the Dutch situation. Following its discussion in separate meetings ofanesthesiology residents and clinical staff, the questionnaire was further edited. The resulting instrument contained 6 teaching domains and 26 items. The questionnaire was made available electronically to anesthesiology residents only. Participation was voluntary, confidential and anonymous. Group results were presented at a plenary session. Anesthesiology staff received their individual scores by e-mail; results were confidential. RESULTS: 21 residents assessed 39 anesthesiologists. A total of 423 questionnaires were completed. Factor analysis resulted in the reduction and re-grouping of the teaching domains. The internal consistency ofthe teaching domains was high (Cronbach-alpha > or = 0.86). The assessment results of the teaching qualities of the anesthesiology faculty were positive. 'Communication of goals' was the lowest scoring (mean = 3.41) and 'Professional attitude towards residents' the highest scoring teaching domain (mean = 4.07). Gender did not correlate with the assessment scores of faculty. 'Year of training' was negatively correlated with most of the teaching domains. CONCLUSION: A feasible and reliable instrument for the evaluation of Dutch clinician-educators is now available.
OBJECTIVE: The development and testing of a questionnaire to enable anesthesiology residents to assess the training qualities oftheir clinician-educators. DESIGN: Questionnaire. METHODS: The taskforce drafted a questionnaire based on the 26 item Stanford Faculty Development Program questionnaire (SFDP26) and adapted to the Dutch situation. Following its discussion in separate meetings ofanesthesiology residents and clinical staff, the questionnaire was further edited. The resulting instrument contained 6 teaching domains and 26 items. The questionnaire was made available electronically to anesthesiology residents only. Participation was voluntary, confidential and anonymous. Group results were presented at a plenary session. Anesthesiology staff received their individual scores by e-mail; results were confidential. RESULTS: 21 residents assessed 39 anesthesiologists. A total of 423 questionnaires were completed. Factor analysis resulted in the reduction and re-grouping of the teaching domains. The internal consistency ofthe teaching domains was high (Cronbach-alpha > or = 0.86). The assessment results of the teaching qualities of the anesthesiology faculty were positive. 'Communication of goals' was the lowest scoring (mean = 3.41) and 'Professional attitude towards residents' the highest scoring teaching domain (mean = 4.07). Gender did not correlate with the assessment scores of faculty. 'Year of training' was negatively correlated with most of the teaching domains. CONCLUSION: A feasible and reliable instrument for the evaluation of Dutch clinician-educators is now available.