Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Assessing Student Performance on a Pediatric Clerkship

Assessing Student Performance on a Pediatric Clerkship Abstract Objective: To determine whether any of 4 parameters used as evaluation methods in the pediatric clerkship at Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC, could predict a student's performance, as measured by the final grade. Design: A retrospective study in which the following data were collected: (1) a record of the diagnoses and total number of patients seen during the rotation, (2) clinical performance grade, (3) the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) pediatric shelf test score, (4) case presentation grade, and (5) the final clerkship grade for overall performance. Setting: Third-year pediatric clerkship in the 1987-1988 academic year at Children's National Medical Center, the George Washington University School of Medicine. Results: A total of 128 students had complete data. Correlations among the clinical parameters, ie, number of patients seen, clinical grade, case grade, and the NBME shelf test score were all statistically nonsignificant. In addition, multiple regression modeling of NBME test scores, using measures such as clinical grade, average case grade, and number of patients seen, was unsuccessful, with only clinical performance entering the regression model. In contrast, modeling of the final clerkship grade resulted in explaining almost 80% of the variation on a student's final grade (R2 = 0.79). Variables submitted to the model were number of patients seen, clinical grade, average case presentation grade, and ordered examination score. Last, a highly significant relationship (χ2=15.98, P<.001) was noted between students receiving a final grade of honors and an "A" on their case grade. Conclusions: Results confirmed that there is no single best predictor of performance on a pediatric clerkship. While there was only a weak correlation between each single measure and the final grade, together these accounted for 80% of the variation in students' scores. Based on the study data, the use of varied evaluative methods to determine a student's final grade is recommended.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150:1209-1212 References 1. O'Donohue WJ Jr, Wergin JF. Evaluation of medical students during a clinical clerkship in internal medicine . J Med Educ . 1978;53:55-58. 2. Dowaliby FJ, Andrew BJ. Relationships between clinical competence ratings and examination performance . J Med Educ . 1976;51:181-188. 3. Littlefield JH, Harrington JT, Anthracite NE, Garman RE. A description and four-year analysis of a clinical clerkship evaluation system . J Med Educ . 1981;56: 334-340. 4. Printen KJ, Chappell W, Whitney DR. Clinical performance evaluation of junior medical students . J Med Educ . 1973;48:343-348. 5. Gough HG, Hall WB, Harris RD. Evaluation of performance in medical training . J Med Educ . 1964;39:679-692. 6. Wingard JR, Williamson JW. Grades as predictors of physicians' career performance: an evaluative literature review . J Med Educ . 1973;48:311-316. 7. Ginsburg AD. Comparison of intraining evaluation with tests of clinical ability in medical students . J Med Educ . 1985;60:30-36. 8. Gonnella JS, Hojat M. Relationship between performance in medical school and postgraduate competence . J Med Educ . 1983;58:679-685. 9. Oaks WW, Scheinok PA, Husted FL. Objective evaluation of a method of assessing student performance in a clinical clerkship . J Med Educ . 1969;44:207-213. 10. Johnson V, Miller RD, Gage RP. Correlation between performance in medical school and in residency training . J Med Educ . 1963;38:591-595. 11. Veloski J, Herman MW, Gonnella JS, Zeleznik C, Kellow WF. Relationship between performance in medical school and first postgraduate year . J Med Educ . 1979;54:909-916. 12. Greenberg LW, Jewett LS. The case presentation: teaching medical students writing and communication skills . Med Teacher . 1987;9:281-284.Crossref 13. Marienfeld RD, Reid JC. Subjective vs objective evaluation of clinical clerks . N Engl J Med . 1980;302:1036-1037. 14. Heiderich KJ, Lightsey Al Jr, Scheidt, PC. Does volume of clinical experience relate to examination scores? Am J Dis Child . 1987;141:379. 15. Greenberg LW, Getson P. Student clinical experience and exam performance: are they related? Am J Dis Child . 1992;146:479. 16. Greenberg LW, Piemme T. Simulations vs other evaluative methods in student assessment . Am J Dis Child . 1992;146:479. 17. Clyman SG, Orr NA. Status report on the NBME's computer-based testing . Acad Med . 1990;65:235-241.Crossref http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine American Medical Association

Assessing Student Performance on a Pediatric Clerkship

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/assessing-student-performance-on-a-pediatric-clerkship-U0GLeSjXol
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
1072-4710
eISSN
1538-3628
DOI
10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170360099017
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Objective: To determine whether any of 4 parameters used as evaluation methods in the pediatric clerkship at Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC, could predict a student's performance, as measured by the final grade. Design: A retrospective study in which the following data were collected: (1) a record of the diagnoses and total number of patients seen during the rotation, (2) clinical performance grade, (3) the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) pediatric shelf test score, (4) case presentation grade, and (5) the final clerkship grade for overall performance. Setting: Third-year pediatric clerkship in the 1987-1988 academic year at Children's National Medical Center, the George Washington University School of Medicine. Results: A total of 128 students had complete data. Correlations among the clinical parameters, ie, number of patients seen, clinical grade, case grade, and the NBME shelf test score were all statistically nonsignificant. In addition, multiple regression modeling of NBME test scores, using measures such as clinical grade, average case grade, and number of patients seen, was unsuccessful, with only clinical performance entering the regression model. In contrast, modeling of the final clerkship grade resulted in explaining almost 80% of the variation on a student's final grade (R2 = 0.79). Variables submitted to the model were number of patients seen, clinical grade, average case presentation grade, and ordered examination score. Last, a highly significant relationship (χ2=15.98, P<.001) was noted between students receiving a final grade of honors and an "A" on their case grade. Conclusions: Results confirmed that there is no single best predictor of performance on a pediatric clerkship. While there was only a weak correlation between each single measure and the final grade, together these accounted for 80% of the variation in students' scores. Based on the study data, the use of varied evaluative methods to determine a student's final grade is recommended.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150:1209-1212 References 1. O'Donohue WJ Jr, Wergin JF. Evaluation of medical students during a clinical clerkship in internal medicine . J Med Educ . 1978;53:55-58. 2. Dowaliby FJ, Andrew BJ. Relationships between clinical competence ratings and examination performance . J Med Educ . 1976;51:181-188. 3. Littlefield JH, Harrington JT, Anthracite NE, Garman RE. A description and four-year analysis of a clinical clerkship evaluation system . J Med Educ . 1981;56: 334-340. 4. Printen KJ, Chappell W, Whitney DR. Clinical performance evaluation of junior medical students . J Med Educ . 1973;48:343-348. 5. Gough HG, Hall WB, Harris RD. Evaluation of performance in medical training . J Med Educ . 1964;39:679-692. 6. Wingard JR, Williamson JW. Grades as predictors of physicians' career performance: an evaluative literature review . J Med Educ . 1973;48:311-316. 7. Ginsburg AD. Comparison of intraining evaluation with tests of clinical ability in medical students . J Med Educ . 1985;60:30-36. 8. Gonnella JS, Hojat M. Relationship between performance in medical school and postgraduate competence . J Med Educ . 1983;58:679-685. 9. Oaks WW, Scheinok PA, Husted FL. Objective evaluation of a method of assessing student performance in a clinical clerkship . J Med Educ . 1969;44:207-213. 10. Johnson V, Miller RD, Gage RP. Correlation between performance in medical school and in residency training . J Med Educ . 1963;38:591-595. 11. Veloski J, Herman MW, Gonnella JS, Zeleznik C, Kellow WF. Relationship between performance in medical school and first postgraduate year . J Med Educ . 1979;54:909-916. 12. Greenberg LW, Jewett LS. The case presentation: teaching medical students writing and communication skills . Med Teacher . 1987;9:281-284.Crossref 13. Marienfeld RD, Reid JC. Subjective vs objective evaluation of clinical clerks . N Engl J Med . 1980;302:1036-1037. 14. Heiderich KJ, Lightsey Al Jr, Scheidt, PC. Does volume of clinical experience relate to examination scores? Am J Dis Child . 1987;141:379. 15. Greenberg LW, Getson P. Student clinical experience and exam performance: are they related? Am J Dis Child . 1992;146:479. 16. Greenberg LW, Piemme T. Simulations vs other evaluative methods in student assessment . Am J Dis Child . 1992;146:479. 17. Clyman SG, Orr NA. Status report on the NBME's computer-based testing . Acad Med . 1990;65:235-241.Crossref

Journal

Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent MedicineAmerican Medical Association

Published: Nov 1, 1996

References