暑期研究奖学金项目提案审查过程的可靠性

A. Peters
{"title":"暑期研究奖学金项目提案审查过程的可靠性","authors":"A. Peters","doi":"10.1097/00001888-199004000-00012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The authors evaluated the reliability of the proposal review process used by a faculty‐student committee to choose medical student researchers for summer fellowships. A total of 82 proposals were reviewed by the committee over a two‐year period (43 in 1987 and 39 in 1988); the proposals were assigned ratings in the spring of each year. The 39 students whose proposals received the highest ratings over the two‐year period received fellowships and carried out their projects during ten weeks in the summer of each year. In December of both years, the research fellows, along with a total of 12 students whose proposals had been rejected by the program over the two‐year period but who had received support from other programs, presented their findings. These research presentations were also judged and rated, and the ratings of all the presentations were compared with the student committee's original ratings of the research proposals. A significant correlation was found between both years' sets of ratings for the proposals and the research presentations. The “accepted” students generally received higher ratings on their presentations than did the “rejected” students; however, the mean of the ratings received by the “accepted” students for their presentations was not significantly higher than that received by the “rejected” students. Even so, the significant correlation between each year's set of ratings for all the students involved demonstrates the soundness of the review process. Acad. Med.","PeriodicalId":87653,"journal":{"name":"Journal. Association of American Medical Colleges","volume":"65 1","pages":"254–256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/00001888-199004000-00012","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Reliability of the Proposal Review Process for a Summer Research Fellowship Program\",\"authors\":\"A. Peters\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/00001888-199004000-00012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The authors evaluated the reliability of the proposal review process used by a faculty‐student committee to choose medical student researchers for summer fellowships. A total of 82 proposals were reviewed by the committee over a two‐year period (43 in 1987 and 39 in 1988); the proposals were assigned ratings in the spring of each year. The 39 students whose proposals received the highest ratings over the two‐year period received fellowships and carried out their projects during ten weeks in the summer of each year. In December of both years, the research fellows, along with a total of 12 students whose proposals had been rejected by the program over the two‐year period but who had received support from other programs, presented their findings. These research presentations were also judged and rated, and the ratings of all the presentations were compared with the student committee's original ratings of the research proposals. A significant correlation was found between both years' sets of ratings for the proposals and the research presentations. The “accepted” students generally received higher ratings on their presentations than did the “rejected” students; however, the mean of the ratings received by the “accepted” students for their presentations was not significantly higher than that received by the “rejected” students. Even so, the significant correlation between each year's set of ratings for all the students involved demonstrates the soundness of the review process. Acad. Med.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal. Association of American Medical Colleges\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"254–256\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1990-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/00001888-199004000-00012\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal. Association of American Medical Colleges\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199004000-00012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal. Association of American Medical Colleges","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199004000-00012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

摘要:作者评估了教师-学生委员会在选择夏季奖学金医学生研究人员时使用的提案审查过程的可靠性。委员会在两年期间共审查了82项提案(1987年43项,1988年39项);这些提案在每年春天被分配评级。39名提案在两年期间获得最高评级的学生获得了奖学金,并在每年夏天的十周内开展他们的项目。在这两年的12月,研究人员和12名在两年中被该项目拒绝但得到其他项目支持的学生一起,发表了他们的研究结果。这些研究报告也被评判和评分,所有报告的评分与学生委员会对研究提案的原始评分进行比较。研究发现,这两年提案和研究报告的评分之间存在显著的相关性。“被录取”的学生通常比“被拒绝”的学生在演讲上得到更高的评分;然而,“被录取”的学生的平均评分并没有显著高于“被拒绝”的学生。即便如此,每年所有学生的评分之间的显著相关性表明了审查过程的合理性。地中海专科学校。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Reliability of the Proposal Review Process for a Summer Research Fellowship Program
Abstract The authors evaluated the reliability of the proposal review process used by a faculty‐student committee to choose medical student researchers for summer fellowships. A total of 82 proposals were reviewed by the committee over a two‐year period (43 in 1987 and 39 in 1988); the proposals were assigned ratings in the spring of each year. The 39 students whose proposals received the highest ratings over the two‐year period received fellowships and carried out their projects during ten weeks in the summer of each year. In December of both years, the research fellows, along with a total of 12 students whose proposals had been rejected by the program over the two‐year period but who had received support from other programs, presented their findings. These research presentations were also judged and rated, and the ratings of all the presentations were compared with the student committee's original ratings of the research proposals. A significant correlation was found between both years' sets of ratings for the proposals and the research presentations. The “accepted” students generally received higher ratings on their presentations than did the “rejected” students; however, the mean of the ratings received by the “accepted” students for their presentations was not significantly higher than that received by the “rejected” students. Even so, the significant correlation between each year's set of ratings for all the students involved demonstrates the soundness of the review process. Acad. Med.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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