PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate how aspects of a teaching performance evaluation system may affect faculty's teaching performance improvement as perceived by residents over time. METHODS: Prospective multicenter cohort study conducted in The Netherlands between 1 September 2008 and 1 February 2013. Nine hundred and one residents and 1068 faculty of 65 teaching programs in 16 hospitals were invited to annually (self-) evaluate teaching performance using the validated, specialty-specific System for Evaluation of Teaching Qualities (SETQ). We used multivariable adjusted generalized estimating equations to analyze the effects of (i) residents' numerical feedback, (ii) narrative feedback, and (iii) faculty's participation in self-evaluation on residents' perception of faculty's teaching performance improvement. RESULTS: The average response rate over three years was 69% for faculty and 81% for residents. Higher numerical feedback scores were associated with residents rating faculty as having improved their teaching performance one year following the first measurement (regression coefficient, b: 0.077; 95% CI: 0.002-0.151; p = 0.045), but not after the second wave of receiving feedback and evaluating improvement. Receiving more suggestions for improvement was associated with improved teaching performance in subsequent years. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation systems on clinical teaching performance appear helpful in enhancing teaching performance in residency training programs. High performing teachers also appear to improve in the perception of the residents.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate how aspects of a teaching performance evaluation system may affect faculty's teaching performance improvement as perceived by residents over time. METHODS: Prospective multicenter cohort study conducted in The Netherlands between 1 September 2008 and 1 February 2013. Nine hundred and one residents and 1068 faculty of 65 teaching programs in 16 hospitals were invited to annually (self-) evaluate teaching performance using the validated, specialty-specific System for Evaluation of Teaching Qualities (SETQ). We used multivariable adjusted generalized estimating equations to analyze the effects of (i) residents' numerical feedback, (ii) narrative feedback, and (iii) faculty's participation in self-evaluation on residents' perception of faculty's teaching performance improvement. RESULTS: The average response rate over three years was 69% for faculty and 81% for residents. Higher numerical feedback scores were associated with residents rating faculty as having improved their teaching performance one year following the first measurement (regression coefficient, b: 0.077; 95% CI: 0.002-0.151; p = 0.045), but not after the second wave of receiving feedback and evaluating improvement. Receiving more suggestions for improvement was associated with improved teaching performance in subsequent years. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation systems on clinical teaching performance appear helpful in enhancing teaching performance in residency training programs. High performing teachers also appear to improve in the perception of the residents.