LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Daberkow II, Dayton W.; Hilton, Charles; Sanders, Charles V.; Chauvin, Sheila W. (2009)
Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
Journal: Medical Education Online
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Purpose. This study examined the extent to which faculty evaluation results differed, based on whether residents were required to submit ratings anonymously or not. Method. We used a retrospective analysis of existing records representing Internal Medicine residents’ evaluation of 51 faculty members in an anonymous and known (non-anonymous) rater system on an inpatient medicine service. Results. Mean scores for 48 of 51 individuals were lower for anonymous than non-anonymous evaluations. The mean scores were as follows: Anonymous = 5.4 (95 % CI, 5.2-5.6); Nonanonymous = 6.1 (95 % CI, 5.9-6.3). Regression analysis of mean scores for non-anonymous evaluations against those for anonymous evaluations revealed a significant relationship (r = 0.83, p < 0.001). Conclusions. Faculty evaluations completed anonymously by residents are significantly lower than those for which resident identities were known. Given the strong, significant relationship between individual faculty members’ evaluation ratings from both systems, other factors influencing evaluations should be considered. No subgroups suffered more under anonymous rankings.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Institutional Requirements, http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/irc/irc_IRCp r703.asp [Accessed April 1, 2005].
    • 2. Graduate Medical Education Directory 2002- 2003. 86th ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 2002.
    • Watson RT, Romrell JJ. Mission-based budgeting: Removing a graveyard. Acad Med, 1999, 74: 627-640.
    • 4. Mehrens W, Lehmann I. Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 4th Ed. NY; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1991.
    • 5. Albanese MA. Challenges in user rater judgments in medical education, J Eval Clin Pract, 2000; 6: 305-319.
    • 6. Albanese MA. Rating educational quality: factors in the erosion of professional standards. Acad Med, 1999; 74: 652-658.
    • 7. Pelsang RE, Smith WL. Comparison of anonymous student ballots with student debriefing for faculty evaluations. Med Educ, 2000; 34: 465-467.
    • 8. Smith SR, Paulen LJ. Use of anonymous student evaluations of faculty members in U.S. medical schools. J Med Edu, 1984; 59: 196- 97.
    • 9. Argulewicz EN, O'Keefe T. An investigation of signed vs. anonymously completed ratings of high school student teachers. Educ Res. Q, 1978; 3: 39-44.
    • 10. Cheong, GSC. Students' evaluation of instructors: before and after the examination, names identified versus anonymous. Can J Higher Educ, 1979; 9: 80-86.
    • 12. Stone EF, Spool MD, Rabinowitz S. Effects of anonymity and retaliatory potential on student evaluations of faculty performance. Res Higher Educ, 1977; 6: 313-324.
    • 13. Braskamp LA, Ory, JC. Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
    • 14. Cashin WE. Student Ratings of Teaching: The Research Revisited, Idea Paper No. 32. Education Resources Information Center, 1995; ED 402 338, http//:www.eric.ed.gov [Accessed April 1, 2005].
    • 15. Cashin WE. Student Ratings of Teaching: A Summary of the Research, Idea Paper No. 20. Education Resources Information Center, ED 302567, http://www.eric.ed.gov [Accessed April 1, 2005].
    • 16. Centra JA. Reflective Faculty Evaluation: Enhancing Teaching and Determning Faculty Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
    • 17. Feldman KA. The significance of circumstances for college students' ratings of their teachers and courses. Res in Higher Ed 1979; 10: 149-172.
    • 18. Marsh HW, Dunkin M. Students' evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. IN JC Smart (Ed.). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 8, pp. 143-223). New York: Agathon, 1992.
    • 19. Irby DM, Gillmore GM, Ramsey PG. Factors affecting ratings of clinical teachers by medical students residents. J Med Educ, 1987; 62: 1-7.
    • 20. Ramsbottom-Lucier MT, Gillmore GM, Irby DM, Ramsey PG. Evaluation of clinical teaching by general internal medicine faculty in outpatient and inpatient settings. Acad Med, 1994; 69: 152-154.
    • Williams BC, Lizelman DK, Babbott SF, Lubitz RM, Hofer TP. Validation of a global measure of faculty's clinical teaching performance. Acad Med, 2002; 77: 177-180.
    • 22. Cohan RH, Dunnick NR, Blane CE, Fitzgerald JT. Improvement of faculty performance: efficacy of resident evaluation. Acad Rad, 1996; 3: 63-7.
    • Whitman N, Schwenk T. Faculty evaluations as a means of faculty development. J Fam Prac 1982; 14: 1097-101.
    • 24. Schum T, Yindra KJ. Relationship between systematic feedback to faculty and ratings of clinical teaching. Acad Med, 1996; 71: 1100- 2.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from