检视住院医师和研究员在教师评估中定量评分和叙述性评论的性别差异。

Journal of graduate medical education Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-16 DOI:10.4300/JGME-D-24-00627.1
Jessica Hane, Vivien Lee, You Zhou, Taj Mustapha, Susan M Culican, G Nic Rider, Paul R Sackett, Michael J Cullen
{"title":"检视住院医师和研究员在教师评估中定量评分和叙述性评论的性别差异。","authors":"Jessica Hane, Vivien Lee, You Zhou, Taj Mustapha, Susan M Culican, G Nic Rider, Paul R Sackett, Michael J Cullen","doi":"10.4300/JGME-D-24-00627.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b> Learner assessments of faculty are widespread in medicine, yet concerns are growing about possible biases in these assessments and their associations with gender disparities. <b>Objective</b> To investigate gender-based differences in how residents and fellows describe faculty (rater effect) and how faculty are described (ratee effect) in faculty assessments, and their associations with teaching effectiveness ratings. <b>Methods</b> We analyzed 2164 trainee assessments of University of Minnesota Medical School faculty from 2019 to 2023 with trainee and faculty gender information and narrative comments. Using natural language processing, we categorized words and 2-word groups (n-grams) into communal (eg, caring, kind), standout (eg, outstanding, amazing), and agentic/ability (eg, assertive, controlling) groups. We examined gender-based differences in n-grams used by trainees (rater effect) and received by faculty (ratee effect), and relationships between n-gram and teaching effectiveness ratings. <b>Results</b> Women trainees used more communal (rater effect, incidence rate ratio [IRR]=1.36; 95% CI, 1.27-1.47), standout (IRR=1.20; 95% CI, 1.08-1.34), and agentic/ability words (IRR=1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.49; <i>P</i><.001) than men trainees. Women faculty received fewer agentic/ability words than men faculty (ratee effect, IRR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90; <i>P</i><.001). Women trainees used fewer communal words when describing women faculty (interaction effect, IRR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; <i>P</i><.05). Teaching effectiveness ratings correlated with faculty n-gram word frequency in standout (men: <i>r<sub>s</sub></i> =0.29, women: <i>r<sub>s</sub>=</i>0.28, <i>P</i><.001) and communal categories (men: <i>r<sub>s</sub></i> =0.23, <i>P</i>=.003; women: <i>r<sub>s</sub>=</i>0.22, <i>P</i>=.01). <b>Conclusions</b> Women trainees used more communal, standout, and agentic/ability descriptors, while women faculty had fewer agentic/ability descriptors. Women trainees used fewer communal words when describing women faculty. Standout and communal word frequency predicted teaching effectiveness ratings for both genders.</p>","PeriodicalId":37886,"journal":{"name":"Journal of graduate medical education","volume":"17 3","pages":"338-346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12168966/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining Gender-Based Differences in Quantitative Ratings and Narrative Comments in Faculty Assessments by Residents and Fellows.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Hane, Vivien Lee, You Zhou, Taj Mustapha, Susan M Culican, G Nic Rider, Paul R Sackett, Michael J Cullen\",\"doi\":\"10.4300/JGME-D-24-00627.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b> Learner assessments of faculty are widespread in medicine, yet concerns are growing about possible biases in these assessments and their associations with gender disparities. <b>Objective</b> To investigate gender-based differences in how residents and fellows describe faculty (rater effect) and how faculty are described (ratee effect) in faculty assessments, and their associations with teaching effectiveness ratings. <b>Methods</b> We analyzed 2164 trainee assessments of University of Minnesota Medical School faculty from 2019 to 2023 with trainee and faculty gender information and narrative comments. Using natural language processing, we categorized words and 2-word groups (n-grams) into communal (eg, caring, kind), standout (eg, outstanding, amazing), and agentic/ability (eg, assertive, controlling) groups. We examined gender-based differences in n-grams used by trainees (rater effect) and received by faculty (ratee effect), and relationships between n-gram and teaching effectiveness ratings. <b>Results</b> Women trainees used more communal (rater effect, incidence rate ratio [IRR]=1.36; 95% CI, 1.27-1.47), standout (IRR=1.20; 95% CI, 1.08-1.34), and agentic/ability words (IRR=1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.49; <i>P</i><.001) than men trainees. Women faculty received fewer agentic/ability words than men faculty (ratee effect, IRR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90; <i>P</i><.001). Women trainees used fewer communal words when describing women faculty (interaction effect, IRR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; <i>P</i><.05). Teaching effectiveness ratings correlated with faculty n-gram word frequency in standout (men: <i>r<sub>s</sub></i> =0.29, women: <i>r<sub>s</sub>=</i>0.28, <i>P</i><.001) and communal categories (men: <i>r<sub>s</sub></i> =0.23, <i>P</i>=.003; women: <i>r<sub>s</sub>=</i>0.22, <i>P</i>=.01). <b>Conclusions</b> Women trainees used more communal, standout, and agentic/ability descriptors, while women faculty had fewer agentic/ability descriptors. Women trainees used fewer communal words when describing women faculty. Standout and communal word frequency predicted teaching effectiveness ratings for both genders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of graduate medical education\",\"volume\":\"17 3\",\"pages\":\"338-346\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12168966/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of graduate medical education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-24-00627.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of graduate medical education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-24-00627.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对教师进行学习者评估在医学领域很普遍,但人们越来越担心这些评估中可能存在偏见,以及它们与性别差异的关系。目的探讨住院医师和研究员在教师评估中对教师的描述(比率效应)和教师的描述(比率效应)的性别差异及其与教学效果评级的关系。方法分析2019 - 2023年明尼苏达大学医学院2164份实习生评估报告,包括实习生和教师的性别信息和叙述性评论。使用自然语言处理,我们将单词和两个单词组(n-gram)分为公共组(例如,关心,善良),突出组(例如,杰出的,惊人的)和代理/能力组(例如,自信,控制)。我们研究了学员使用n-gram(比率效应)和教师接受n-gram(比率效应)的性别差异,以及n-gram与教学效果评级之间的关系。结果女性研修生使用公共场所的比例较高,发生率比[IRR]=1.36;95% CI, 1.27-1.47), standout (IRR=1.20;95% CI, 1.08-1.34)和代理/能力词(IRR=1.37;95% ci, 1.26-1.49;pppr =0.29,女性:rs=0.28, Prs =0.23, P= 0.003;女性:rs=0.22, P= 0.01)。结论:女性学员更多地使用公共、突出和代理/能力描述词,而女性教师较少使用代理/能力描述词。女性学员在描述女教员时较少使用公共词汇。突出词频率和共同词频率预测了男女学生的教学效果评分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining Gender-Based Differences in Quantitative Ratings and Narrative Comments in Faculty Assessments by Residents and Fellows.

Background Learner assessments of faculty are widespread in medicine, yet concerns are growing about possible biases in these assessments and their associations with gender disparities. Objective To investigate gender-based differences in how residents and fellows describe faculty (rater effect) and how faculty are described (ratee effect) in faculty assessments, and their associations with teaching effectiveness ratings. Methods We analyzed 2164 trainee assessments of University of Minnesota Medical School faculty from 2019 to 2023 with trainee and faculty gender information and narrative comments. Using natural language processing, we categorized words and 2-word groups (n-grams) into communal (eg, caring, kind), standout (eg, outstanding, amazing), and agentic/ability (eg, assertive, controlling) groups. We examined gender-based differences in n-grams used by trainees (rater effect) and received by faculty (ratee effect), and relationships between n-gram and teaching effectiveness ratings. Results Women trainees used more communal (rater effect, incidence rate ratio [IRR]=1.36; 95% CI, 1.27-1.47), standout (IRR=1.20; 95% CI, 1.08-1.34), and agentic/ability words (IRR=1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.49; P<.001) than men trainees. Women faculty received fewer agentic/ability words than men faculty (ratee effect, IRR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90; P<.001). Women trainees used fewer communal words when describing women faculty (interaction effect, IRR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P<.05). Teaching effectiveness ratings correlated with faculty n-gram word frequency in standout (men: rs =0.29, women: rs=0.28, P<.001) and communal categories (men: rs =0.23, P=.003; women: rs=0.22, P=.01). Conclusions Women trainees used more communal, standout, and agentic/ability descriptors, while women faculty had fewer agentic/ability descriptors. Women trainees used fewer communal words when describing women faculty. Standout and communal word frequency predicted teaching effectiveness ratings for both genders.

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
Journal of graduate medical education
Journal of graduate medical education Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
248
期刊介绍: - Be the leading peer-reviewed journal in graduate medical education; - Promote scholarship and enhance the quality of research in the field; - Disseminate evidence-based approaches for teaching, assessment, and improving the learning environment; and - Generate new knowledge that enhances graduates'' ability to provide high-quality, cost-effective care.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信