Nicholas D Hartman 1 , David E Manthey 1 , Lindsay C Strowd 1 , Nicholas M Potisek 1 , Andrea Vallevand 1 , Janet Tooze 1 , Jon Goforth 1 , Kimberly McDonough 1 , Kim L Askew 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several factors are known to affect the way clinical performance evaluations (CPEs) of medical students are completed by supervising physicians. We sought to explore the effect of faculty perceived "level of interaction" (LOI) on these evaluations. METHODS: Our third-year CPE requires evaluators to identify perceived LOI with each student as low, moderate, or high. We examined CPEs completed during the academic year 2018-2019 for differences in (1) clinical and professionalism ratings, (2) quality of narrative comments, (3) quantity of narrative comments, and (4) percentage of evaluation questions left unrated. RESULTS: A total of 3682 CPEs were included in the analysis. ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between LOI and clinical ratings (p ≤ .001), with mean ratings from faculty with a high LOI significantly higher than from faculty with a moderate or low LOI (p ≤ .001). Chi-squared analysis demonstrated differences based on faculty LOI and whether questions were left unrated (p ≤ .001), quantity of narrative comments (p ≤ .001), and specificity of narrative comments (p ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: Faculty who perceive higher LOI were more likely to assign that student higher ratings, complete more of the clinical evaluation and were more likely to provide narrative feedback with more specific, higher-quality comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01307-w. © International Association of Medical Science Educators 2021.
INTRODUCTION: Several factors are known to affect the way clinical performance evaluations (CPEs) of medical students are completed by supervising physicians. We sought to explore the effect of faculty perceived "level of interaction" (LOI) on these evaluations. METHODS: Our third-year CPE requires evaluators to identify perceived LOI with each student as low, moderate, or high. We examined CPEs completed during the academic year 2018-2019 for differences in (1) clinical and professionalism ratings, (2) quality of narrative comments, (3) quantity of narrative comments, and (4) percentage of evaluation questions left unrated. RESULTS: A total of 3682 CPEs were included in the analysis. ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between LOI and clinical ratings (p ≤ .001), with mean ratings from faculty with a high LOI significantly higher than from faculty with a moderate or low LOI (p ≤ .001). Chi-squared analysis demonstrated differences based on faculty LOI and whether questions were left unrated (p ≤ .001), quantity of narrative comments (p ≤ .001), and specificity of narrative comments (p ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: Faculty who perceive higher LOI were more likely to assign that student higher ratings, complete more of the clinical evaluation and were more likely to provide narrative feedback with more specific, higher-quality comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01307-w. © International Association of Medical Science Educators 2021.
Entities: Chemical
Year: 2021
PMID： 34457975 PMCID： PMC8368453 DOI： 10.1007/s40670-021-01307-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Educ ISSN： 2156-8650