探讨性别对工作场所评估质量的影响。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-11 DOI:10.1007/s43678-023-00499-x
Julie Ingratta, Nancy Dudek, Lauren Lacroix, Miguel Cortel-LeBlanc, Meghan McConnell, Warren J Cheung
{"title":"探讨性别对工作场所评估质量的影响。","authors":"Julie Ingratta, Nancy Dudek, Lauren Lacroix, Miguel Cortel-LeBlanc, Meghan McConnell, Warren J Cheung","doi":"10.1007/s43678-023-00499-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Workplace-based assessments are an important tool for trainee feedback and as a means of reporting expert judgments of trainee competence in the workplace. However, the literature has demonstrated that gender bias can exist within these assessments. We aimed to determine whether gender differences in the quality of workplace-based assessment data exist in our residency training program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted at the University of Ottawa in the Department of Emergency Medicine. Four end-of-shift workplace-based assessments completed by men faculty and four completed by women faculty were randomly selected for each resident during the 2018-2019 academic year. Two blinded raters scored each workplace-based assessment using the Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR), a published nine-item quantitative measure of workplace-based assessment quality. A 2 × 2 mixed measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) of resident gender and faculty gender was conducted, with mean CCERR score as the dependent variable. The ANOVA was repeated with mean workplace-based assessment rating as the dependent variable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 363 workplace-based assessments were analyzed for 46 residents. There were no significant effects of faculty or resident gender on the quality of workplace-based assessments (p = 0.30). There was no difference in mean workplace-based assessment ratings between women and men residents (p = 0.92), and no interaction between resident and faculty gender (p = 0.62). Mean CCERR score was 25.8, SD = 4.2, indicating average quality assessments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We did not find faculty or resident gender differences in the quality of workplace-based assessments completed in our training program. While the literature has previously demonstrated gender bias in trainee assessments, our results are not surprising as assessment culture varies by institution and program. Our study cautions against generalizing gender bias across contexts, and offers an approach that educators can use to evaluate whether gender bias in the quality of trainee assessments exists within their program.</p>","PeriodicalId":55286,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring gender influences in the quality of workplace-based assessments.\",\"authors\":\"Julie Ingratta, Nancy Dudek, Lauren Lacroix, Miguel Cortel-LeBlanc, Meghan McConnell, Warren J Cheung\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43678-023-00499-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Workplace-based assessments are an important tool for trainee feedback and as a means of reporting expert judgments of trainee competence in the workplace. However, the literature has demonstrated that gender bias can exist within these assessments. We aimed to determine whether gender differences in the quality of workplace-based assessment data exist in our residency training program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted at the University of Ottawa in the Department of Emergency Medicine. Four end-of-shift workplace-based assessments completed by men faculty and four completed by women faculty were randomly selected for each resident during the 2018-2019 academic year. Two blinded raters scored each workplace-based assessment using the Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR), a published nine-item quantitative measure of workplace-based assessment quality. A 2 × 2 mixed measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) of resident gender and faculty gender was conducted, with mean CCERR score as the dependent variable. The ANOVA was repeated with mean workplace-based assessment rating as the dependent variable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 363 workplace-based assessments were analyzed for 46 residents. There were no significant effects of faculty or resident gender on the quality of workplace-based assessments (p = 0.30). There was no difference in mean workplace-based assessment ratings between women and men residents (p = 0.92), and no interaction between resident and faculty gender (p = 0.62). Mean CCERR score was 25.8, SD = 4.2, indicating average quality assessments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We did not find faculty or resident gender differences in the quality of workplace-based assessments completed in our training program. While the literature has previously demonstrated gender bias in trainee assessments, our results are not surprising as assessment culture varies by institution and program. Our study cautions against generalizing gender bias across contexts, and offers an approach that educators can use to evaluate whether gender bias in the quality of trainee assessments exists within their program.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00499-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00499-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

介绍:基于工作场所的评估是培训生反馈的重要工具,也是报告培训生工作场所能力的专家判断的一种手段。然而,文献表明,性别偏见可能存在于这些评估中。我们的目的是确定在我们的住院医师培训项目中,基于工作场所的评估数据的质量是否存在性别差异。方法:本研究在渥太华大学急诊医学系进行。在2018-2019学年期间,为每位住院医师随机选择由男性教师完成的四项下班后工作场所评估和由女性教师完成的四项评估。两名盲法评分者使用完成临床评估报告评级(CCERR)对每个基于工作场所的评估进行评分,CCERR是一项公开的基于工作场所的评估质量的九项量化指标。以CCERR平均评分为因变量,对住院医师性别和教师性别进行2 × 2混合测量方差分析(ANOVA)。以基于工作场所的平均评估等级为因变量,重复方差分析。结果:共分析了46名居民的363份基于工作场所的评估。教师或住院医师性别对基于工作场所的评估质量没有显著影响(p = 0.30)。女性和男性住院医师在基于工作场所的平均评估评分上没有差异(p = 0.92),住院医师和教师性别之间没有相互作用(p = 0.62)。平均CCERR评分为25.8,SD = 4.2,为平均质量评价。结论:在我们的培训项目中,我们没有发现教师或住院医师在工作场所评估的质量上存在性别差异。虽然以前的文献已经证明了培训生评估中的性别偏见,但我们的结果并不令人惊讶,因为评估文化因机构和项目而异。我们的研究提醒人们不要将性别偏见普遍化,并提供了一种方法,教育工作者可以用它来评估培训生评估质量中是否存在性别偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring gender influences in the quality of workplace-based assessments.

Introduction: Workplace-based assessments are an important tool for trainee feedback and as a means of reporting expert judgments of trainee competence in the workplace. However, the literature has demonstrated that gender bias can exist within these assessments. We aimed to determine whether gender differences in the quality of workplace-based assessment data exist in our residency training program.

Methods: This study was conducted at the University of Ottawa in the Department of Emergency Medicine. Four end-of-shift workplace-based assessments completed by men faculty and four completed by women faculty were randomly selected for each resident during the 2018-2019 academic year. Two blinded raters scored each workplace-based assessment using the Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR), a published nine-item quantitative measure of workplace-based assessment quality. A 2 × 2 mixed measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) of resident gender and faculty gender was conducted, with mean CCERR score as the dependent variable. The ANOVA was repeated with mean workplace-based assessment rating as the dependent variable.

Results: A total of 363 workplace-based assessments were analyzed for 46 residents. There were no significant effects of faculty or resident gender on the quality of workplace-based assessments (p = 0.30). There was no difference in mean workplace-based assessment ratings between women and men residents (p = 0.92), and no interaction between resident and faculty gender (p = 0.62). Mean CCERR score was 25.8, SD = 4.2, indicating average quality assessments.

Conclusions: We did not find faculty or resident gender differences in the quality of workplace-based assessments completed in our training program. While the literature has previously demonstrated gender bias in trainee assessments, our results are not surprising as assessment culture varies by institution and program. Our study cautions against generalizing gender bias across contexts, and offers an approach that educators can use to evaluate whether gender bias in the quality of trainee assessments exists within their program.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
171
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CJEM is a peer-reviewed journal owned by CAEP. CJEM is published every 2 months (January, March, May, July, September and November). CJEM presents articles of interest to emergency care providers in rural, urban or academic settings. Publishing services are provided by the Canadian Medical Association.
×
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