Literature DB >> 34457654

Exploring Perspectives from Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors in the USA on Effective Narrative Evaluation: Results from the CDIM National Survey.

Robert Ledford1, Alfred Burger2, Jeff LaRochelle3, Farina Klocksieben1, Deborah DeWaay1, Kevin E O'Brien1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Clinical performance evaluations play a critical role in determining medical school clerkship grades. This study aimed to provide clarification from clerkship directors in internal medicine on what constitutes an effective and informative narrative description of student performance.
METHODS: In September 2016, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) electronically administered its annual, voluntary, and confidential cross-sectional survey of its US membership. One section of the survey asked six questions regarding the helpful components of an effective narrative evaluation. Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of elements contained within narrative evaluations of students.
RESULTS: Ninety-five CDIM members responded to the survey with an overall response rate of 74.2%. Descriptions of skills and behaviors were felt to be the most important, followed by a description of the overall synthetic or global assessment level of the student. Descriptions of personality and attitude were the next highest rated feature followed by adjectives describing performance. Length was felt to be the least important component. In free-text comments, several respondents indicated that direct observation of performance and specific examples of skills and behaviors are also desirable.
CONCLUSIONS: Narrative evaluations of students that explicitly comment on skills, behaviors, and an overarching performance level of the learner are strongly preferred by clerkship directors. Direct observation of clinical performance and giving specific examples of such behaviors give evaluations even more importance. Faculty development on evaluation and assessment should include instruction on these narrative assessment characteristics. © International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Faculty development; Learner assessment; Narrative evaluation

Year:  2019        PMID: 34457654      PMCID: PMC8368638          DOI: 10.1007/s40670-019-00825-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Sci Educ        ISSN: 2156-8650


  25 in total

1.  A new vocabulary and other innovations for improving descriptive in-training evaluations.

Authors:  L Pangaro
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 2.  Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings.

Authors:  Reed G Williams; Debra A Klamen; William C McGaghie
Journal:  Teach Learn Med       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.414

3.  The State of Medical Student Performance Evaluations: Improved Transparency or Continued Obfuscation?

Authors:  Jason Hom; Ilana Richman; Philip Hall; Neera Ahuja; Stephanie Harman; Robert Harrington; Ronald Witteles
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 6.893

4.  Giving feedback on clinical skills: are we starving our young?

Authors:  Peter A M Anderson
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2012-06

5.  Faculty development in assessment: the missing link in competency-based medical education.

Authors:  Eric S Holmboe; Denham S Ward; Richard K Reznick; Peter J Katsufrakis; Karen M Leslie; Vimla L Patel; Donna D Ray; Elizabeth A Nelson
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 6.893

6.  Clinical Performance Evaluations of Third-Year Medical Students and Association With Student and Evaluator Gender.

Authors:  Alison Riese; Leah Rappaport; Brian Alverson; Sangshin Park; Randal M Rockney
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  Feedback in clinical medical education.

Authors:  J Ende
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1983-08-12       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The Quality of Written Feedback by Attendings of Internal Medicine Residents.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Jackson; Cynthia Kay; Wilkins C Jackson; Michael Frank
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Does what we write matter? Determining the features of high- and low-quality summative written comments of students on the internal medicine clerkship using pile-sort and consensus analysis: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Lauren Gulbas; William Guerin; Hilary F Ryder
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 2.463

10.  Faculty development for the evaluation system: a dual agenda.

Authors:  Kellee L Oller; Cuc T Mai; Robert J Ledford; Kevin E O'Brien
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2017-03-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.