Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Our purpose was to evaluate the characteristics of highly and poorly rated teachers as well as to assess the validity and reliability of those evaluations.</p> Methods <p>We downloaded 14&#xa0;years of medicine faculty evaluations completed by 3rd and 4<sup>th</sup> year medical students. We dichotomized overall teaching effectiveness as outstanding (receiving “outstanding”) or inferior (rated as a “unsatisfactory,” “marginal,” or “acceptable”). We analyzed these using logistic regression (STATA v 18.0). We assessed validity and reliability using factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, and intraclass correlation coefficients.</p> Results <p>Most (57%) of the 722 faculty members were rated as outstanding. Medical students valued faculty that took advantage of opportunities to teach (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.7–3.3), who were enthusiastic (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.3–2.9), and clear/organized (OR, 2.5; 2.3–2.7). Faculty rarely were rated as inferior (7.7%). Among lower-rated faculty, 91% had more than one lower evaluation. Lower-rated teachers had lower ratings on most domains of evaluation including taking advantages of opportunities to teach (4.6 vs. 2.7, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0005), being clear and organized (3.0 vs. 4.6, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0005), enthusiasm (4.5 vs. 2.7, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0005), being supportive (4.5 vs. 2.5, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0005), providing feedback (4.4 vs. 2.6, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.005), or clearly answering questions (4.6 vs. 3.1, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0005). While evaluations were highly consistent (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.94), there were low levels of agreement with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.09 to 0.36.</p> Conclusion <p>Most attendings received high ratings, while lower ratings were uncommon. Most teachers receiving lower ratings received more than one, suggesting that lower ratings may be a better discriminator of teaching effectiveness than outstanding ones. Teaching ratings had low inter-rater reliability, suggesting either low validity or that learners value different characteristics in teachers.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Medical Student Evaluations of Medical Faculty: Characteristics of Highly and Lower-Rated Teachers

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月8日

查看全文
  • Jeffrey L. Jackson,
  • Katherine Gavinski,
  • Michelle G. Thompson,
  • Derek Storch,
  • Mary G. Murphy,
  • Sarah Nickoloff,
  • Akira Kuriyama

摘要

Purpose

Our purpose was to evaluate the characteristics of highly and poorly rated teachers as well as to assess the validity and reliability of those evaluations.

Methods

We downloaded 14 years of medicine faculty evaluations completed by 3rd and 4th year medical students. We dichotomized overall teaching effectiveness as outstanding (receiving “outstanding”) or inferior (rated as a “unsatisfactory,” “marginal,” or “acceptable”). We analyzed these using logistic regression (STATA v 18.0). We assessed validity and reliability using factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, and intraclass correlation coefficients.

Results

Most (57%) of the 722 faculty members were rated as outstanding. Medical students valued faculty that took advantage of opportunities to teach (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.7–3.3), who were enthusiastic (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.3–2.9), and clear/organized (OR, 2.5; 2.3–2.7). Faculty rarely were rated as inferior (7.7%). Among lower-rated faculty, 91% had more than one lower evaluation. Lower-rated teachers had lower ratings on most domains of evaluation including taking advantages of opportunities to teach (4.6 vs. 2.7, p < 0.0005), being clear and organized (3.0 vs. 4.6, p < 0.0005), enthusiasm (4.5 vs. 2.7, p < 0.0005), being supportive (4.5 vs. 2.5, p < 0.0005), providing feedback (4.4 vs. 2.6, p < 0.005), or clearly answering questions (4.6 vs. 3.1, p < 0.0005). While evaluations were highly consistent (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.94), there were low levels of agreement with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.09 to 0.36.

Conclusion

Most attendings received high ratings, while lower ratings were uncommon. Most teachers receiving lower ratings received more than one, suggesting that lower ratings may be a better discriminator of teaching effectiveness than outstanding ones. Teaching ratings had low inter-rater reliability, suggesting either low validity or that learners value different characteristics in teachers.