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

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of General Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-08 DOI:10.1007/s11606-024-09085-y
Jeffrey L Jackson, Katherine Gavinski, Michelle G Thompson, Derek Storch, Mary G Murphy, Sarah Nickoloff, Akira Kuriyama
{"title":"Medical Student Evaluations of Medical Faculty: Characteristics of Highly and Lower-Rated Teachers.","authors":"Jeffrey L Jackson, Katherine Gavinski, Michelle G Thompson, Derek Storch, Mary G Murphy, Sarah Nickoloff, Akira Kuriyama","doi":"10.1007/s11606-024-09085-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We downloaded 14 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><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"996-1002"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11968595/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09085-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

医学生对医学院的评价:高评与低评教师的特点。
目的:我们的目的是评估高和低评价教师的特点,以及评估这些评价的效度和信度。方法:我们下载了三年级和四年级医学生14年来完成的医学教师评估。我们将整体教学效果分为优秀(“优秀”)或较差(“不满意”,“边缘”或“可接受”)。我们使用逻辑回归(STATA v 18.0)对这些进行分析。我们使用因子分析、Cronbach’s alpha和类内相关系数来评估效度和信度。结果:722名教职员工中,大多数(57%)被评为优秀。医科学生重视那些利用机会进行教学的教师(OR, 3.0;95% CI, 2.7-3.3),他们是热情的(OR, 2.6;95% CI, 2.3-2.9)和清晰/有组织(OR, 2.5;2.3 - -2.7)。教师很少被评为劣等(7.7%)。在评分较低的教师中,91%的教师得到了不止一个较低的评价。评分较低的教师在大多数评估领域的评分较低,包括利用教学机会(4.6比2.7,p)。结论:大多数出席者获得较高的评分,而较低的评分是罕见的。大多数获得较低评分的教师都获得了不止一分,这表明较低的评分可能比优秀的教师更能区分教学效果。教学评等的评等者间信度较低,表明要么效度较低,要么学习者看重教师的不同特质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信