Literature DB >> 34457660

Daily Evaluation Cards Are Superior for Student Assessment Compared to Single Rater In-Training Evaluations.

James Johnston1, Maury Pinsk1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The University of Manitoba's ambulatory pediatric clerkship transitioned to daily encounter cards (DECs) from single in-training evaluation reports (ITERs). The impact of this change on quality of student assessment was unknown. Using the validated Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR) scale, we compared the assessment quality of the single ITER to the DEC-based system.
METHODS: Block randomization was used to select from a cohort of ITER- and DEC-based assessments during equivalent points in clerkship training. Data were transcribed and anonymized and scored by two blinded raters using the CCERR.
RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability for total CCERR scores was substantive (> 0.6). Mean total CCERR score for the DEC cohort was significantly higher than for the ITER cohort (25.2 vs. 16.8, p < 0.001), as were the mean scores for each item (2.81 vs. 1.86, p < 0.05). Multivariate logistical regression supported the significant influence of assessment method on assessment quality.
CONCLUSIONS: There is improvement in the average quality of student assessments associated with the transition from an ITER-based system to a DEC-based system. However, the improvement to only average CCERR scores for the DEC cohort suggests an unmet need for faculty development. © International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Daily evaluation cards; Feedback; Medical students; Quality improvement; Student assessment

Year:  2019        PMID: 34457660      PMCID: PMC8368482          DOI: 10.1007/s40670-019-00855-6

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


  13 in total

1.  In-training evaluation during an internal medicine clerkship.

Authors:  R Hatala; G R Norman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  A pleasure to work with--an analysis of written comments on student evaluations.

Authors:  P S Lye; K A Biernat; D S Bragg; D E Simpson
Journal:  Ambul Pediatr       Date:  2001 May-Jun

3.  Surgery residents and attending surgeons have different perceptions of feedback.

Authors:  A Sender Liberman; Moishe Liberman; Yvonne Steinert; Peter McLeod; Sarkis Meterissian
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.650

4.  Rules of engagement: residents' perceptions of the in-training evaluation process.

Authors:  Christopher J Watling; Cynthia F Kenyon; Elaine M Zibrowski; Valerie Schulz; Mark A Goldszmidt; Indu Singh; Heather L Maddocks; Lorelei Lingard
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 6.893

5.  Assessing the quality of supervisors' completed clinical evaluation reports.

Authors:  Nancy L Dudek; Meridith B Marks; Timothy J Wood; A Curtis Lee
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 6.251

6.  Getting beyond "Good job": how to give effective feedback.

Authors:  Joseph Gigante; Michael Dell; Angela Sharkey
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 7.124

7.  Giving feedback in medical education: verification of recommended techniques.

Authors:  M G Hewson; M L Little
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Realizing the promise and importance of performance-based assessment.

Authors:  Jennifer R Kogan; Eric Holmboe
Journal:  Teach Learn Med       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.414

9.  Daily Encounter Cards-Evaluating the Quality of Documented Assessments.

Authors:  Warren J Cheung; Nancy Dudek; Timothy J Wood; Jason R Frank
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2016-10

10.  Pediatric faculty and residents' perspectives on In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITERs).

Authors:  Rikin Patel; Anne Drover; Roger Chafe
Journal:  Can Med Educ J       Date:  2015-12-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.