Megan Boysen Osborn1, James Mattson, Justin Yanuck, Craig Anderson, Ara Tekian, John Christian Fox, Ilene B Harris. 1. M. Boysen Osborn is assistant professor and residency program director, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California. J. Mattson is a fourth-year medical student, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Irvine, California. J. Yanuck is a fourth-year medical student, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Irvine, California. C. Anderson is research specialist, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California. A. Tekian is professor, Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois, Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. J.C. Fox is professor and assistant dean of student affairs, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California. I.B. Harris is professor and head and director of graduate studies, Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois, Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the variability among medical schools in ranking systems used in medical student performance evaluations (MSPEs). METHOD: The authors reviewed MSPEs from U.S. MD-granting medical schools received by the University of California, Irvine emergency medicine and internal medicine residency programs during 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. They recorded whether the school used a ranking system, the type of ranking system used, the size and description of student categories, the location of the ranking statement and category legend, and whether nonranking schools used language suggestive of rank. RESULTS: Of the 134 medical schools in the study sample, the majority (n = 101; 75%) provided ranks for students in the MSPE. Most of the ranking schools (n = 63; 62%) placed students into named category groups, but the number and size of groups varied. The most common descriptors used for these 63 schools' top, second, third, and lowest groups were "outstanding," "excellent," "very good," and "good," respectively, but each of these terms was used across a broad range of percentile ranks. Student ranks and school category legends were found in various locations. Many of the 33 schools that did not rank students included language suggestive of rank. CONCLUSIONS: There is extensive variation in ranking systems used in MSPEs. Program directors may find it difficult to use MSPEs to compare applicants, which may diminish the MSPE's value in the residency application process and negatively affect high-achieving students. A consistent approach to ranking students would benefit program directors, students, and student affairs officers.
PURPOSE: To examine the variability among medical schools in ranking systems used in medical student performance evaluations (MSPEs). METHOD: The authors reviewed MSPEs from U.S. MD-granting medical schools received by the University of California, Irvine emergency medicine and internal medicine residency programs during 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. They recorded whether the school used a ranking system, the type of ranking system used, the size and description of student categories, the location of the ranking statement and category legend, and whether nonranking schools used language suggestive of rank. RESULTS: Of the 134 medical schools in the study sample, the majority (n = 101; 75%) provided ranks for students in the MSPE. Most of the ranking schools (n = 63; 62%) placed students into named category groups, but the number and size of groups varied. The most common descriptors used for these 63 schools' top, second, third, and lowest groups were "outstanding," "excellent," "very good," and "good," respectively, but each of these terms was used across a broad range of percentile ranks. Student ranks and school category legends were found in various locations. Many of the 33 schools that did not rank students included language suggestive of rank. CONCLUSIONS: There is extensive variation in ranking systems used in MSPEs. Program directors may find it difficult to use MSPEs to compare applicants, which may diminish the MSPE's value in the residency application process and negatively affect high-achieving students. A consistent approach to ranking students would benefit program directors, students, and student affairs officers.
Authors: Christopher S Kiefer; James E Colletti; M Fernanda Bellolio; Erik P Hess; Dale P Woolridge; Kristen B Thomas; Annie T Sadosty Journal: Acad Med Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: James B Naidich; Gregory M Grimaldi; Pamela Lombardi; Lawrence P Davis; Jason J Naidich Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-04-06 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Rebecca L Tisdale; Amy R Filsoof; Surbhi Singhal; Wendy Cáceres; Shriram Nallamshetty; Angela J Rogers; Abraham C Verghese; Robert A Harrington; Ronald M Witteles Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 6.473
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
Authors: Jeffrey B Bird; Karen A Friedman; Thurayya Arayssi; Doreen M Olvet; Rosemarie L Conigliaro; Judith M Brenner Journal: Med Educ Online Date: 2021-12