Faculty Assessments in a Military Medical Field Practicum: Rater Experience and Gender Do Not Appear to Influence Scoring

Author:

Barry Erin S1,Dong Ting2,Durning Steven J2,Schreiber-Gregory Deanna2,Torre Dario2,Grunberg Neil E1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Military & Emergency Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, 4301 Jones Bridge Rd, Bethesda, MD 20814

2. Department of Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, 4301 Jones Bridge Rd, Bethesda, MD 20814

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Any implicit and explicit biases that exist may alter our interpretation of people and events. Within the context of assessment, it is important to determine if biases exist and to decrease any existing biases, especially when rating student performance to provide meaningful, fair, and useful input. The purpose of this study was to determine if the experience and gender of faculty members contribute to their ratings of students in a military medical field practicum. This information is important for fair ratings of students. Three research questions were addressed: Were there differences between new versus experienced faculty raters? Were there differences in assessments provided by female and male faculty members? Did gender of faculty raters impact ratings of female and male students?. Materials and Methods This study examined trained faculty evaluators’ ratings of three cohorts of medical students during 2015–2017 during a medical field practicum. Female (n = 80) and male (n = 161) faculty and female (n = 158) and male (n = 311) students were included. Within this dataset, there were 469 students and 241 faculty resulting in 5,599 ratings for each of six outcome variables that relate to overall leader performance, leader competence, and leader communication. Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables for the first four observations of each student. Descriptive analyses were performed for evaluator experience status and gender differences by each of the six variables. A multivariate analyses of variance was performed to examine whether there were differences between gender of faculty and gender of students. Results Descriptive analyses of the experience status of faculty revealed no significant differences between means on any of the rating elements. Descriptive analyses of faculty gender revealed no significant differences between female and male faculty ratings of the students. The overall MANOVA analyses found no statistically significant difference between female and male students on the combined dependent variables of leader performance for any of the four observations. Conclusions The study revealed that there were no differences in ratings of student leader performance based on faculty experience. In addition, there were no differences in ratings of student leader performance based on faculty gender.

Funder

Henry M. Jackson Foundation Education

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Medicine

Reference25 articles.

1. Where bias begins: the truth about stereotypes;Paul;Psychol Today,1998

2. Expertise in performance assessment: assessors’ perspectives;Berendonk;Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract,2013

3. Workplace-based assessment: effects of rater expertise;Govaerts;Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract,2011

4. Effect of rater training on reliability of Melbourne assessment of unilateral upper limb function scores;Cusick;Dev Med Child Neurol,2005

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3