OBJECTIVE: The authors performed this study to determine whether clerkship peer evaluations, initiated as part of our "team-based learning" curriculum in 2002, correlated with other student performance measures, and to determine what qualities students rate in their peer evaluations. METHOD: The authors correlated peer evaluation scores with other student performance measures and performed a qualitative examination of student comments to assess reasons students gave for giving high and low scores. RESULTS: Peer evaluation scores correlated modestly with the National Board of Medical Examiners’ (NBME) subject test, in-class quiz, and clinical scores. Qualitative comments demonstrated that students made assessments based on three thematic areas: personal attributes, team contributions, and cognitive abilities. CONCLUSIONS: Peers’ evaluation scores modestly predict which students will perform well on other measures. However, there may be other qualities that are also important factors in peer evaluation. For example, most students value qualities of preparation and participation. Though students sometimes dislike peer evaluations, their assessments may enhance traditional course assessments and complement a comprehensive evaluation strategy.
Peer Evaluation in a Clinical Clerkship: Students' Attitudes, Experiences, and Correlations With Traditional Assessments
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors performed this study to determine whether clerkship peer evaluations, initiated as part of our "team-based learning" curriculum in 2002, correlated with other student performance measures, and to determine what qualities students rate in their peer evaluations. METHOD: The authors correlated peer evaluation scores with other student performance measures and performed a qualitative examination of student comments to assess reasons students gave for giving high and low scores. RESULTS: Peer evaluation scores correlated modestly with the National Board of Medical Examiners’ (NBME) subject test, in-class quiz, and clinical scores. Qualitative comments demonstrated that students made assessments based on three thematic areas: personal attributes, team contributions, and cognitive abilities. CONCLUSIONS: Peers’ evaluation scores modestly predict which students will perform well on other measures. However, there may be other qualities that are also important factors in peer evaluation. For example, most students value qualities of preparation and participation. Though students sometimes dislike peer evaluations, their assessments may enhance traditional course assessments and complement a comprehensive evaluation strategy.Preview Only. This article cannot be rented because we do not currently have permission from the publisher.
/lp/american-psychiatric-publishing-inc-journal/peer-evaluation-in-a-clinical-clerkship-students-attitudes-experiences-CaOIc6TRZe
Welcome to DeepDyve! Rent Premier Research Articles and Save Up to 90%
Preview Only
Peer Evaluation in a Clinical Clerkship: Students' Attitudes, Experiences, and Correlations With Traditional Assessments
Levine, Ruth E.; Kelly, P. Adam; Karakoc, Tayfun; Haidet, Paul
Follow Academic Psychiatry
, Volume 31 (1): 19
American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc (Journal) – Feb 1, 2007
More Info
More Like This Article
View All dataSource[]=actageo&dataSource[]=aspet&dataSource[]=aaos&dataSource[]=aacc&dataSource[]=aacr&dataSource[]=aea&dataSource[]=aip&dataSource[]=ajnr&dataSource[]=ams&dataSource[]=aps_physical&dataSource[]=appi_book&dataSource[]=appi_journal&dataSource[]=apha&dataSource[]=asip&dataSource[]=asm&dataSource[]=asn&dataSource[]=aspb&dataSource[]=avs&dataSource[]=annual_reviews&dataSource[]=arxiv&dataSource[]=acm&dataSource[]=berghahn&dataSource[]=cabi&dataSource[]=clinical_trials&dataSource[]=dailymed&dataSource[]=degruyter&dataSource[]=du_press&dataSource[]=esa&dataSource[]=eu_press&dataSource[]=elsevier&dataSource[]=emerald&dataSource[]=ejtr&dataSource[]=emea&dataSource[]=epo&dataSource[]=faseb&dataSource[]=gsa&dataSource[]=health_affairs&dataSource[]=hindawi&dataSource[]=imanager&dataSource[]=imedpub&dataSource[]=informa_healthcare&dataSource[]=informs&dataSource[]=iop&dataSource[]=iucr&dataSource[]=iospress&dataSource[]=jbjs&dataSource[]=leftcoast&dataSource[]=lu_press&dataSource[]=mesharpe&dataSource[]=mary_ann_liebert&dataSource[]=medline&dataSource[]=mit_press&dataSource[]=nature&dataSource[]=oxford&dataSource[]=pier_professional&dataSource[]=pnas&dataSource[]=portlandpress&dataSource[]=psyc_articles&dataSource[]=psyc_books&dataSource[]=psyc_critiques&dataSource[]=plos_journal&dataSource[]=pubmed_central&dataSource[]=rsna&dataSource[]=rockefeller&dataSource[]=rcn&dataSource[]=ria&dataSource[]=rsc&dataSource[]=sage&dataSource[]=spie&dataSource[]=springer_journal&dataSource[]=springer&dataSource[]=taylor_francis&dataSource[]=aps&dataSource[]=the_scientist&dataSource[]=uc_press&dataSource[]=uspto_abstract&dataSource[]=wiley&dataSource[]=pct
© 2012 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
