BACKGROUND: Scholarly activity is a requirement for accreditation by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. There is currently no uniform definition used by all Residency Review Committees (RRCs). A total of 6 of the 27 RRCs currently have a rubric or draft of a rubric to evaluate scholarly activity. OBJECTIVE: To develop a definition of scholarly activity and a set of rubrics to be used in program accreditation to reduce subjectivity of the evaluation of scholarly activity at the level of individual residency programs and across RRCs. METHODS: We performed a review of the pertinent literature and selected faculty promotion criteria across the United States to develop a structure for a proposed rubric of scholarly activity, drawing on work on scholarship by experts to create a definition of scholarly activity and rubrics for its assessment. RESULTS: The literature review showed that academic institutions in the United States place emphasis on all 4 major components of Boyer's definition of scholarship: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. We feel that the assessment of scholarly activity should mirror these findings as set forth in our proposed rubric. Our proposed rubric is intended to ensure a more objective evaluation of these components of scholarship in accreditation reviews, and to address both expectations for scholarly pursuits for core teaching faculty and those for resident and fellow physicians. CONCLUSION: The aim of our proposed rubric is to ensure a more objective evaluation of these components of scholarship in accreditation reviews, and to address expectations for scholarly pursuits for core teaching faculty as well as those for resident and fellow physicians.
BACKGROUND: Scholarly activity is a requirement for accreditation by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. There is currently no uniform definition used by all Residency Review Committees (RRCs). A total of 6 of the 27 RRCs currently have a rubric or draft of a rubric to evaluate scholarly activity. OBJECTIVE: To develop a definition of scholarly activity and a set of rubrics to be used in program accreditation to reduce subjectivity of the evaluation of scholarly activity at the level of individual residency programs and across RRCs. METHODS: We performed a review of the pertinent literature and selected faculty promotion criteria across the United States to develop a structure for a proposed rubric of scholarly activity, drawing on work on scholarship by experts to create a definition of scholarly activity and rubrics for its assessment. RESULTS: The literature review showed that academic institutions in the United States place emphasis on all 4 major components of Boyer's definition of scholarship: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. We feel that the assessment of scholarly activity should mirror these findings as set forth in our proposed rubric. Our proposed rubric is intended to ensure a more objective evaluation of these components of scholarship in accreditation reviews, and to address both expectations for scholarly pursuits for core teaching faculty and those for resident and fellow physicians. CONCLUSION: The aim of our proposed rubric is to ensure a more objective evaluation of these components of scholarship in accreditation reviews, and to address expectations for scholarly pursuits for core teaching faculty as well as those for resident and fellow physicians.
Authors: R M Fincher; D E Simpson; S P Mennin; G C Rosenfeld; A Rothman; M C McGrew; P A Hansen; P E Mazmanian; J M Turnbull Journal: Acad Med Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Deborah Simpson; Ruth-Marie E Fincher; Janet P Hafler; David M Irby; Boyd F Richards; Gary C Rosenfeld; Thomas R Viggiano Journal: Med Educ Date: 2007-09-05 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Mark K Wallack; Linda Reilly; Thomas Whalen; Paul Columbani; Mark Malangoni; Patrick O'Leary; Charles Van Way; Peggy Simpson Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Matthew S Robbins; Sheryl R Haut; Richard B Lipton; Mark J Milstein; Lenore C Ocava; Karen Ballaban-Gil; Solomon L Moshé; Mark F Mehler Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 9.910