PURPOSE: To collect information regarding preparation, content, and format of Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPEs) and evaluate a sample of 2005 MSPEs to assess compliance with the 2002 Association of American Medical Colleges-issued MSPE guidelines. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey with all 126 U.S. allopathic medical schools. Associate deans of students affairs were sent an eight-item questionnaire in June 2006 and asked to submit a sample of redacted MSPEs for 2005 graduates, choosing one from each tertile of the class. Survey data are summarized. MSPEs were abstracted, and results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 84%. Most associate deans (71%) reported having primary responsibility for composing MSPEs; 78% adhered to the format and content guidelines three fourths of the time. The abstraction of 293 MSPEs (78%) showed that more than 80% adhered to format recommendations. However, only 70% to 80% stated grades clearly, avoided the word recommendation, and stated whether the student had completed remediation. Fewer than 70% indicated whether the student had had any adverse actions or provided adequate comparative data. Strikingly, only 17% provide comparative data in the summary paragraph. Overall, 75% of the MSPEs were judged to be "adequate." CONCLUSIONS: MSPEs are somewhat variable in terms of which specific items are included. There has been steady quality improvement since prior surveys, primarily in formatting and labeling. However, a sizable minority of writers are still using the MSPE as a recommendation, and too few are providing helpful comparative data.
PURPOSE: To collect information regarding preparation, content, and format of Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPEs) and evaluate a sample of 2005 MSPEs to assess compliance with the 2002 Association of American Medical Colleges-issued MSPE guidelines. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey with all 126 U.S. allopathic medical schools. Associate deans of students affairs were sent an eight-item questionnaire in June 2006 and asked to submit a sample of redacted MSPEs for 2005 graduates, choosing one from each tertile of the class. Survey data are summarized. MSPEs were abstracted, and results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 84%. Most associate deans (71%) reported having primary responsibility for composing MSPEs; 78% adhered to the format and content guidelines three fourths of the time. The abstraction of 293 MSPEs (78%) showed that more than 80% adhered to format recommendations. However, only 70% to 80% stated grades clearly, avoided the word recommendation, and stated whether the student had completed remediation. Fewer than 70% indicated whether the student had had any adverse actions or provided adequate comparative data. Strikingly, only 17% provide comparative data in the summary paragraph. Overall, 75% of the MSPEs were judged to be "adequate." CONCLUSIONS: MSPEs are somewhat variable in terms of which specific items are included. There has been steady quality improvement since prior surveys, primarily in formatting and labeling. However, a sizable minority of writers are still using the MSPE as a recommendation, and too few are providing helpful comparative data.
Authors: Megan Boysen Osborn; James Mattson; Justin Yanuck; Craig Anderson; Ara Tekian; John Christian Fox; Ilene B Harris Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Terra N Thimm; Christopher S Kiefer; Mara S Aloi; Moira Davenport; Jared Kilpatrick; Jeffrey S Bush; Lindsey Jennings; Stephen M Davis; Kimberly Quedado; Erica B Shaver Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2021-08-21
Authors: Megan Boysen-Osborn; Justin Yanuck; James Mattson; Shannon Toohey; Alisa Wray; Warren Wiechmann; Shadi Lahham; Mark I Langdorf Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2016-11-29