BACKGROUND: Assessment of clinical teaching by learners is of value to teachers, department heads, and program directors, and must be comprehensive and feasible. AIMS: To review published evaluation instruments with psychometric evaluations and to develop and psychometrically evaluate an instrument for assessing clinical teaching with linkages to the CanMEDS roles. METHOD: We developed a 19-item questionnaire to reflect 10 domains relevant to teaching and the CanMEDS roles. A total of 317 medical learners assessed 170 instructors. Fourteen (4.4 %) clinical clerks, 229 (72.3%) residents, and 53 (16.7%) fellows assessed 170 instructors. Twenty-one (6.6%) did not specify their position. RESULTS: A mean number of eight raters assessed each instructor. The internal consistency reliability of the 19-item instrument was Cronbach's α = 0.95. The generalizability coefficient (Ep(2)) analysis indicated that the raters achieved Ep(2) of 0.95. The factor analysis showed three factors that accounted for 67.97% of the total variance. The three factors together, with the variance accounted for and their internal consistency reliability, are teaching skills (variance = 53.25s%; Cronbach's α = 0.92), Patient interaction (variance = 8.56%; Cronbach's α = 0.91), and professionalism (variance = 6.16%; Cronbach's α = 0.86). The three factors are intercorrelated (correlations = 0.48, 0.58, 0.46; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to assess clinical teaching with the 19-item instrument that has demonstrated evidence of both validity and reliability.
BACKGROUND: Assessment of clinical teaching by learners is of value to teachers, department heads, and program directors, and must be comprehensive and feasible. AIMS: To review published evaluation instruments with psychometric evaluations and to develop and psychometrically evaluate an instrument for assessing clinical teaching with linkages to the CanMEDS roles. METHOD: We developed a 19-item questionnaire to reflect 10 domains relevant to teaching and the CanMEDS roles. A total of 317 medical learners assessed 170 instructors. Fourteen (4.4 %) clinical clerks, 229 (72.3%) residents, and 53 (16.7%) fellows assessed 170 instructors. Twenty-one (6.6%) did not specify their position. RESULTS: A mean number of eight raters assessed each instructor. The internal consistency reliability of the 19-item instrument was Cronbach's α = 0.95. The generalizability coefficient (Ep(2)) analysis indicated that the raters achieved Ep(2) of 0.95. The factor analysis showed three factors that accounted for 67.97% of the total variance. The three factors together, with the variance accounted for and their internal consistency reliability, are teaching skills (variance = 53.25s%; Cronbach's α = 0.92), Patient interaction (variance = 8.56%; Cronbach's α = 0.91), and professionalism (variance = 6.16%; Cronbach's α = 0.86). The three factors are intercorrelated (correlations = 0.48, 0.58, 0.46; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to assess clinical teaching with the 19-item instrument that has demonstrated evidence of both validity and reliability.