Literature DB >> 20881821

The "good" dean's letter.

Christopher S Kiefer1, James E Colletti, M Fernanda Bellolio, Erik P Hess, Dale P Woolridge, Kristen B Thomas, Annie T Sadosty.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether a correlation exists between the term "good" on the summative, comparative assessment of a student's Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) and his or her actual performance in medical school.
METHOD: The authors reviewed the MSPEs submitted to three residency programs to determine the presence of the term "good" in either the summary paragraph or the appendices. Next, they noted, for institutions using "good," the percentile rankings of those students who received "good" as a descriptor. To examine the consistency among institutions regarding the percentile ranking denoted by "good," they dichotomized the data into students below and above the bottom 25th percentile. They analyzed the data using a nonparametric test because of their nonnormal distribution.
RESULTS: The authors collected MSPEs from 122 of the 125 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools that were graduating students in 2008. Of these 122 institutions, 34 (28%) used the term "good." All 34 institutions used the term to characterize students in the bottom 50% of the graduating class. The authors found a significant difference in the percentile ranking of students described as "good" between institutions using it to describe the bottom 25% and institutions using the term to describe those in the 25th to 50th percentiles (median ranking of 12.5% versus 30%, P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the term "good" in the MSPE describes students in the bottom 50% of the class; therefore, the term "good," as used to describe performance in medical school, consistently indicates below-average performance.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20881821     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f55a10

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  6 in total

1.  Ranking Practice Variability in the Medical Student Performance Evaluation: So Bad, It's "Good".

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

2.  Does the Medical Student Performance Evaluation Change the Decision to Invite Residency Applicants?

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

3.  Factors Affecting Candidate Placement on an Emergency Medicine Residency Program's Rank Order List.

Authors:  Michael J Breyer; Annie Sadosty; Michelle Biros
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2012-12

4.  Who to Interview? Low Adherence by U.S. Medical Schools to Medical Student Performance Evaluation Format Makes Resident Selection Difficult.

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

5.  Which Emergency Medicine Milestone Sub-competencies are Identified Through Narrative Assessments?

Authors:  David Diller; Shannon Cooper; Aarti Jain; Chun Nok Lam; Jeff Riddell
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2019-12-20

6.  Prioritizing the Interview in Selecting Resident Applicants: Behavioral Interviews to Determine Goodness of Fit.

Authors:  Michael B Prystowsky; Evan Cadoff; Yungtai Lo; Tiffany M Hebert; Jacob J Steinberg
Journal:  Acad Pathol       Date:  2021-10-25
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.