Share

September 2022; 1 (1) Research ArticleOpen Access

Education Research: A Long-term Faculty Development Initiative Improves Specificity and Usefulness of Narrative Evaluations of Clerkship Students

Christopher J. Mooney, Stephen Joseph Powell, Spencer Dahl, Carly Eiduson, Benjamin Reinhardt, Robert Thompson Stone
First published September 22, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/NE9.0000000000200003
Full PDF
Citation
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
0

Share

Abstract

Background and Objectives Narrative-based evaluations are increasingly used to discriminate between levels of trainee performance, yet barriers to high-quality narratives remain. Prior evidence shows mixed results regarding the effectiveness of faculty development efforts on improving narrative evaluation quality.

Methods We used a quasi-experimental study incorporating a historical control group to examine the effectiveness of a pragmatic, multipronged, 4-year faculty development initiative on narrative evaluation quality in a neurology clerkship. We evaluated narrative evaluation quality using the narrative evaluation quality instrument (NEQI) in random samples of narrative evaluations from a historical control and intervention group. We used multilevel modeling to compare NEQI scores (and subscale scores) across groups. Informed by the theory of deliberate practice, our faculty development initiative included (1) annual grand rounds sessions focused on developing high-quality narratives and reporting evaluation metrics, (2) restructuring the clerkship assessment form to simplify and prioritize narratives, (3) recruiting key faculty to rotate on the clerkship grading committee to gain experience with and practice developing quality narratives, and (4) instituting a narrative evaluation excellence award to faculty and residents.

Results The faculty development initiative was associated with improvements in the quality of students' narrative evaluations. Specifically, the intervention group was a significant predictor of NEQI score, with means of 6.4 (95% CI 5.9–6.9) and 7.6 (95% CI 7.2–8.1) for the historical control and intervention groups, respectively. In addition, the intervention group was associated with significant improvement in the specificity and usefulness NEQI subscale scores, but not the performance domain subscale score.

Discussion A long-term, multipronged faculty development initiative can facilitate improvements in narrative evaluation quality. We attribute these findings to 2 factors: (1) pragmatic, solution-oriented efforts that balance focused didactics with programmatic shifts that promote deliberate practice and skill improvement and (2) departmental resources that prioritize and convey a commitment to improving trainee assessment.

Glossary

CCERR=
completed clinical evaluation report rating;
ICC=
intraclass correlations coefficient;
ITER=
in-training evaluation report;
NEQI=
narrative evaluation quality instrument

Valid assessment of clinical competence is an elusive and evolving exercise.1,-,3 Over the past several decades, assessment frameworks in medical education have moved beyond a singular focus on objectivity and minimizing human judgment toward paradigms that embrace more subjective and nonstandardized performance assessments to inform defensible decision-making of learner competence.4,-,6 Indeed, a growing body of literature now accepts that performance is socially constructed—conceptualized and negotiated by individual, situational, and environmental contexts—and the pursuit of a single truth or bias-free objectivity is a naive assumption and likely a fool's errand.5,7,-,9 Furthermore, the literature has established validity evidence of narrative assessments4,10,11 indicating that, relative to numeric-based assessments, constructivist-interpretivist assessment approaches provide meaningful7,12,13 and potentially more valid representations of trainee performance.7,14

Despite their advantages, the promise of narrative-based assessment is reliant on accurate and insightful comments. Yet, narrative evaluations are regularly perceived as vague,15 nonspecific,16,17 and prone to writers' idiosyncrasies that can impair interpretation.18 Studies also suggest that narratives are more often praising than critical,17,18 implicating a culture of politeness in medical education that impedes meaningful feedback.18,-,21 Reports of faculty development initiatives to generate higher-quality narratives are relatively limited and show mixed results. A study by Dudek et al.,22 for instance, found that a workshop to improve quality of in-training evaluation reports (ITERs) increased scores on the completed clinical evaluation report rating (CCERR) in a self-selected sample of 22 physicians; however, the small sample and absence of a control group preclude definitive conclusions of the intervention's efficacy. Conversely, a study of a similar faculty development workshop in pharmacology clinical supervisors failed to improve CCERR scores relative to historical controls.23 Beyond didactic workshops, efforts to alter the assessment environment including structural changes to ITER forms24 and increased continuity of supervision25 have proven similarly challenging to producing high-quality trainee assessments and speak to the task's difficulty more generally.

Notwithstanding the disparate evidence, targeted feedback and intervention has been shown to be an effective element to improving faculty teaching effectiveness26 and quality of rater-based assessments.27 With respect to the latter, Dudek et al.27 found that relative to controls, CCERR scores improved in an intervention group that received feedback on ITER quality over a 6-month period across several institutions, although the effect was relatively modest and the intervention was not specifically directed toward improving narrative comments.

The importance of feedback in promoting expertise is a guiding principle of the Ericson model of deliberate practice which necessitates deliberate reflection of feedback and subsequent practice.28 After calls to encourage rich, insightful, and accurate narratives4,11,18,21,24 and guided by tenets of deliberate practice,28 we sought to build upon the work by Dudek et al.27 and examined the extent to which a multipronged faculty development effort could improve the quality of medical students' narrative evaluations. We hypothesized that such an effort would demonstrate higher-quality narratives in the intervention group compared with a historical control group, as measured by the narrative evaluation quality instrument (NEQI), which comprehensively assesses the quality of narrative evaluations.29 As a secondary aim, we sought to collect additional validity evidence30 of the NEQI.

The findings from this study can advance understanding on how to improve and measure the quality of narrative evaluations, which is imperative given transitions to entrustment ratings and programmatic assessment models that are apt to increase the volume and reliance on narrative assessment of trainees.7,31,32 In addition, the recent elimination of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Skills examination and increasing prominence of pass/fail grading schemes are likely to further increase the importance of narrative assessments because residency programs look for alternative means to discriminate between levels of trainee performance.33

Methods

Intervention

We used a quasi-experimental study incorporating a historical control group to examine the effect of department-wide faculty development efforts around narrative evaluation quality over a 4-year period. Our faculty development efforts included a multipronged approach grounded in pragmatic, solution-oriented actions and included 4 key elements. First, we instituted an annual medical education grand rounds session focused on teaching core components of high-quality narrative assessment (e.g., use of examples and constructive critique) and reporting narrative evaluation quality metrics to faculty, residents, and other key stakeholders. The session encouraged participants to reflect upon and examine their own narrative assessments. We chose a grand rounds setting for this didactic session given high attendance, of which approximately 50% constitute department faculty and 25% residents. Second, we restructured the clerkship ITER form (Figure 1) to reduce item redundancy and evaluators' cognitive load. Specific efforts included the prioritization of narratives by removing all numeric scores and encouraging specific examples around learner performance. Third, we recruited key faculty who provide the largest quantity of trainee evaluations (e.g., neurohospitalists) to rotate on the neurology grading committee for a period of 1–2 years to familiarize them with quality narratives that can inform student assessment. The 7 members of the grading committee, including a rotating neurohospitalist, account for approximately 8% of all completed student ITERs. Last, we instituted an annual evaluation excellence award to select faculty and residents who consistently provided high-quality narrative evaluations as a means of recognizing outstanding evaluators. This laudatory award, selected by using a consensus process by the clerkship grading committee, is provided to 1–2 faculty and residents and announced at subsequent department grand rounds.

Figure 1
Figure 1 Neurology Clerkship Evaluation Form

Setting and Participants

The neurology clerkship at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry is a 4-week inpatient rotation in the third year. All faculty spend 1 week with each student, with the exception of child neurologists who spend 2 weeks with students. Attending rotations are 1–2 weeks long. Residents typically rotate with an individual student for 2 weeks on a given service and are responsible for assigning students' patients, teaching on rounds, assigning and overseeing tasks, and providing on-the-fly and formal feedback. A request to evaluate students using a standardized ITER form is sent to faculty and residents after their scheduled rotation(s). Students generally receive between 5 and 9 ITERs. Narrative information from the ITERs accounts for 60% of students' grades.

We abstracted deidentified neurology clerkship narrative evaluations from 20 randomly selected medical students from the 2020–2021 academic year, resulting in a total of 118 unique narratives for the intervention group. We selected 20 medical students to provide an equivalent sample to the historical control group (n = 20) that were randomly selected during the 2016–2017 academic year and used in a previous study examining reliability evidence of a tool (below) to assess narrative quality,29 resulting in 123 unique control group narratives.

Measures

We measured narrative evaluation quality in the historical control and intervention groups using the NEQI (Figure 2). The NEQI assesses the quality of narrative evaluations along several dimensions including performance domains, specificity of comments, and usefulness to trainees and has been shown to reliably differentiate between narrative quality.29 Before narrative evaluation review, 4 reviewers (authors: S.J.P., S.D., C.E., and B.R.) used the NEQI training guide alongside 12 student evaluations for training purposes. Once consistency was established, the 4 reviewers independently assessed each of the remaining 20 students' total narrative evaluations (n = 118), which comprised the analytic sample for the intervention group. We then compared NEQI scores of this cohort with the historical controls' NEQI scores (n = 123), which were assessed by 5 different reviewers.

Figure 2
Figure 2 Narrative Evaluation Quality Instrument

Analysis

We used linear mixed-effects modeling to compare NEQI scores across the control and intervention groups. Mixed-effects modeling allows for the partitioning of variance components and is appropriate for clustered data, such as repeated observations across students and faculty and nested data structures (e.g., students within faculty).34 We began by fitting an unconditional model to estimate the proportion of variance because of clustering between students and faculty and to confirm the appropriateness of a mixed-model analysis. We then developed a random intercept model to predict NEQI score, including study group (historical control or intervention) and reviewer as fixed effects and allowing the intercepts to vary across faculty (level 2) and student (level 3). We estimated reliability for total NEQI scores with intraclass correlations coefficients (ICCs). In secondary analyses, we used multilevel generalized linear models to compare the NEQI subscale scores (e.g., domain, specificity, and usefulness) across the historical control and intervention groups. Multilevel generalized linear models were used given their flexibility with potentially nonlinear responses that may exist given few response options within the NEQI subscales.35 We also compared the average count of each performance domain (e.g., clinical reasoning and fund of knowledge) across groups. We observed no missing data in study variables. We used Stata/SE version 14.2 (College Station, TX) for all analyses.

Ethics

The University of Rochester Medical Center's Research Subjects Review Board approved this study.

Data Availability

Study data supporting the findings are available upon request after review and approval by the University of Rochester's Research Subjects Review Board.

Results

For the intervention group, 4 reviewers assessed a total of 118 unique narrative evaluations of students, resulting in 472 NEQI scores. The intervention group's narratives were composed of 55 assessors (60.0% attendings; 40.0% residents), with an average of 2.1 (SD = 1.3) narratives per assessor. In the historical control group, 5 reviewers assessed 123 unique narrative evaluations, resulting in 615 NEQI scores. The control group's narratives were composed of 53 assessors (62.3% attendings and 37.7% residents), with an average of 2.3 (SD = 1.5) narratives per assessor. The range of narratives completed across groups was similar (1–6). Examination of participants indicated that 17 assessors were in both the control and intervention groups, resulting in 91 unique assessors in the study sample.

A likelihood-ratio test comparing the fit of the unconditional model with a conventional linear model confirmed a significant improvement in model fit (χ2(2) = 1,098.5, p < 0.0001), thus warranting a mixed-model analysis. Analysis of the unconditional models across study group revealed NEQI grand means of 6.4 (95% CI 5.90–6.90) and 7.6 (95% CI 7.15–8.10) for the historical control and intervention groups, respectively. Examination of interrater reliability revealed relatively similar ICCs across the 2 groups (ICC intervention group: 0.81 [95% CI 0.76–0.85]; ICC control group: 0.79 [95% CI 0.74–0.84]).

The subsequent development of the random intercept model including reviewer and cohort as fixed effects revealed a significant improvement in model fit when compared with the unconditional model with a likelihood-ratio test (χ2(8) = 103.39, p < 0.0001). Examination of model estimates indicated that study group was a significant predictor of NEQI scores (b = 1.58, p < 0.0001), controlling for reviewer effects (Table). With respect to the analysis of NEQI subscales, generalized linear models further revealed that study group was a statistically significant predictor of specificity (b = 1.01, p < 0.0001) and usefulness (b = 0.45, p = 0.005) subscales. Conversely, study group was not a significant predictor for performance domain subscale score (b = 0.13, p = 0.241). The results of models and means of NEQI subscale scores across groups are presented in Table.

View this table:
Table

Mean Total and Subscale NEQI Scores for Control and Intervention Groups and Parameter Estimates for Effect of Intervention Group on Total and Subscale NEQI Scores

Examination of performance domain counts across the 2 groups yielded notable findings. With the exception of the overall performance domain that was greater in the control group (χ2(1) = 452.6, p < 0.0001), the intervention group had a greater number of narratives commenting on students' clinical reasoning (χ2(1) = 274.8 p < 0.0001), fund of knowledge (χ2(1) = 34.1 p < 0.0001), clinical skills (χ2(1) = 98.3 p < 0.0001), preparation/participation in care (χ2(1) = 7.3 p = 0.007), written/oral presentation skills (χ2(1) = 52.5 p < 0.0001), and professionalism (χ2(1) = 41.1 p < 0.0001). There were no differences in the initiative performance domain across groups (χ2(1) = 1.67 p = 0.197).

Discussion

Narrative-based assessment has emerged as a critical component of clinical assessment, yet barriers to high-quality narratives remain. In this study, we aimed to compare the quality of faculty narrative evaluations after implementation of a multipronged, 4-year faculty development program. Using a historical control design, we found evidence that our pragmatic faculty development efforts, which focused on developing high-quality narratives, were associated with a higher quality of medical student narrative evaluations. Specifically, assessors in the intervention cohort had significantly higher NEQI scores relative to historical controls.

The finding that our intervention increased the specificity and usefulness NEQI subscale scores, but not the performance domain subscale, is important. A subsequent analysis comparing counts of performance domains across cohorts indicated that the intervention group commented less on students' overall performance but had an increased number of comments on all but one specific performance domain. These findings suggest that assessors were providing more detailed descriptions of trainee performance around specific clinical domains including the use of examples to substantiate written feedback and inform trainees' goal development; however, the scope of narratives remained relatively similar across groups. A lack of improvement with respect to the total number of performance domains commented on is noteworthy and could be explained by evaluation burden, assessor time limitations, or limits to working memory vis-a-vis extraneous cognitive load.36 Alternatively, Cheung et al.25 have suggested that assessors' judgments are influenced by gestalt impressions and relatively limited aspects of performance, which could explain a propensity to comment on a relatively limited number of performance domains.

Our finding of higher-quality narratives in the intervention group compares favorably with the broader literature, which has shown mixed results regarding the effect of faculty development efforts on narrative quality22,-,25 including negligible effects and self-selected samples, with the latter potentially favoring the inclusion of participants more invested in trainee evaluation.37,38 Distinct from prior studies,22,23,27 we procured students' narratives through a random selection process which is likely to provide a more heterogeneous sample with respect to assessors' educational interests and training, thus enhancing generalizability of results. With respect to the observed effect, the relative difference in the control and intervention groups might appear modest; however, our effect is similar in magnitude to prior studies that have shown improvements in assessments, including written comments, after rater/assessor training.27,39,40 In addition, our prior work developing the NEQI29 has suggested that an NEQI score of 7 represents a minimum quality threshold, with the bulk of evaluations in the historical control group failing to reach this level, although further work is needed to understand whether this threshold is of educational significance.

The study findings have important implications for narrative assessment and trainee evaluations more generally. Most notably, this study extends evidence suggesting that multipronged faculty development initiatives may be better positioned to facilitate improvements in narrative assessments of trainees relative to single, isolated interventions.22,25,27 Such interventions, particularly when incorporating process-level and structural-level changes to affect the broader learning environment and culture around trainee assessment, are poised to facilitate skill improvement and mastery. Although prior work with the NEQI has established several sources of validity evidence including that regarding content and internal structure,14,29 this study provides additional evidence relating to consequences41 by documenting the intended effect of the intervention through an improvement in the quality of narrative assessments. It is important that no unintended effects of the NEQI scores were observed based by removing numeric scores from the clerkship ITERs. The intersection of study findings with our guiding theoretical framework also warrants consideration. Our faculty development intervention was designed to foster structured activities (e.g., self-reflection, practice) to improve performance in a domain-specific area (e.g., narrative assessment), which is consistent with the original definition of deliberate practice.42,43 However, research scrutiny has suggested that conditions for deliberate practice—individualized training directed by a qualified teacher—are rarely met and instead may reflect other nuanced forms of practice including purposeful and naive practice, which may have differential effects on performance.42,44 A similar dispute centers on whether deliberate practice must be an independent activity or whether it can also comprise groups, such as faculty.42,44 Ultimately, the definitional confusion and evolving conceptualization of deliberate practice have led some to question whether researchers can consistently conceptualize, apply, and test this theory in their work.45 Although it is reasonable to ask whether our study meets the hallmarks of deliberate practice, we contend that flexibility is needed for theoretical praxis in complex, resource-constrained settings, such as faculty development, where periodic, individualized training across large cohorts is often impracticable. Instead, our findings suggest that a theoretically informed intervention focused on structural-level and process-level factors that support domain-specific practice can be readily applied and are linked with performance improvement. It is also arguable that such contexts may comprise a necessary condition for performance improvement beyond a general accounting of one's total accrued time engaged in (deliberate) practice activities—a claim supported by multifactorial models of expertise that consider expertise a product of multiple factors including environmental and experiential influences.45

Study conclusions should be qualified in light of limitations. First, this study focused on one department (neurology) within a single institution, which could affect the transferability of findings to other contexts. Although we have expanded our efforts to other learners in different settings locally, similar studies are needed to replicate effects beyond our own institution. Second, given the random selection process of student narratives, it is unclear whether all narrative authors received equivalent exposure to the intervention. Thus, our effect estimate may underestimate or overestimate the true effect of the intervention. Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, our findings are analogous in scope and direction to similar studies, which strengthens the transferability of findings.27,39,40 Third, as discussed, our study builds upon efforts documenting the effectiveness of multipronged faculty development efforts; however, the complex nature of such interventions hinders precise replication and the ability to identify specific elements that result in an educationally beneficial finding.46 Although theoretically and empirically informed interventions can help minimize these constraints,46 isolating a single causative agent may be an unreasonable expectation given the multifactorial nature of teaching and learning within complex educational systems. Relatedly, in the absence of a contemporaneous control group, it is possible that other concurrent changes in the educational program including maturation of assessors or inconsistency of assessors across groups, rather than the intervention itself, may be responsible for changes in scores across time.47 However, the random selection process of students' narratives and moderate consistency of assessors (approximately one-third of the intervention group) suggests that the effect of these threats is relatively minimal.

In addition, our study examined narrative quality and was not designed to assess narrative accuracy—both of which are critical to providing valid clinical assessment and entrustment decisions. Indeed, evidence has suggested that cultural, social, and organizational tendencies such as saving face may result in politeness strategies that impede authentic feedback and assessment.20,48 Relatedly, our intervention was focused solely on developing high-quality narratives and did not aim to alter specific aspects of the clinical learning environment (e.g., providing greater direct observation), which could potentially mediate high-quality feedback and assessment by optimizing the teacher-learner relationship.20 To this end, we echo the call of Cheung et al.25 that additional research is necessary to better understand how an educational alliance can positively affect each of these subcomponents and narrative quality more generally.

In conclusion, the findings from this study show that a pragmatic, multipronged faculty development initiative predicated on tenets of deliberate practice, which used the NEQI as a teaching and feedback mechanism, is associated with improvements in the quality of narrative evaluations of medical students. Departmental resources were critical to developing and embedding these efforts into our education program and conveying a collective commitment to improving trainee assessment. Although prior work with the NEQI has established several sources of validity evidence including content and internal structure,14,29 future work will collect examine consequences evidence30 by how examining trainees and promotion committees may differentially interpret and use higher-scored vs lower-scored comments using the NEQI. Future research will also involve identifying specific assessor-level factors that are associated with overall and subscale NEQI scores and examining the effect of providing individualized feedback, rather than aggregate group feedback, on narrative quality. Such efforts have the potential to inform more focused individual-level interventions around narrative assessment quality in health professions education.

Study Funding

No targeted funding reported.

Disclosure

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Go to Neurology.org/NE for full disclosures.

Appendix

Table
Appendix

Authors

Footnotes

  • Go to Neurology.org/NE for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.

  • Submitted and externally peer reviewed. The handling editor was Roy Strowd III, MD, MEd, MS.

  • Received April 11, 2022.
  • Accepted in final form July 6, 2022.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Lurie SJ,
    2. Mooney CJ,
    3. Lyness JM
    . Measurement of the general competencies of the accreditation council for graduate medical education: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2009;84(3):301-309. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181971f08.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Kuper A,
    2. Reeves S,
    3. Albert M,
    4. Hodges BD
    . Assessment: do we need to broaden our methodological horizons? Med Educ. 2007;41(12):1121-1123. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02945.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Schuwirth LWT,
    2. van der Vleuten CPM
    . A history of assessment in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020;25(5):1045-1056. doi: 10.1007/s10459-020-10003-0.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Cook DA,
    2. Kuper A,
    3. Hatala R,
    4. Ginsburg S
    . When assessment data are words: validity evidence for qualitative educational assessments. Acad Med. 2016;91(10):1359-1369. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001175.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ten Cate O,
    2. Regehr G
    . The power of subjectivity in the assessment of medical trainees. Acad Med. 2019;94(3):333-337. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002495.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hodges B
    . Assessment in the post-psychometric era: learning to love the subjective and collective. Med Teach. 2013;35(7):564-568. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.789134.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Govaerts M,
    2. van der Vleuten CP
    . Validity in work-based assessment: expanding our horizons. Med Educ. 2013;47(12):1164-1174. doi: 10.1111/medu.12289.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ginsburg S,
    2. McIlroy J,
    3. Oulanova O,
    4. Eva K,
    5. Regehr G
    . Toward authentic clinical evaluation: pitfalls in the pursuit of competency. Acad Med. 2010;85(5):780-786. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d73fb6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Mattson C,
    2. Bushardt RL,
    3. Artino AR
    . When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. J Grad Med Educ. 2021;13(1):2-5. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-20-01492.1.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Ginsburg S,
    2. van der Vleuten CPM,
    3. Eva KW
    . The hidden value of narrative comments for assessment: a quantitative reliability analysis of qualitative data. Acad Med. 2017;92(11):1617-1621. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001669.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Hatala R,
    2. Sawatsky AP,
    3. Dudek N,
    4. Ginsburg S,
    5. Cook DA
    . Using in-training evaluation report (ITER) qualitative comments to assess medical students and residents: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2017;92(6):868-879. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001506.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hanson JL,
    2. Rosenberg AA,
    3. Lane JL
    . Narrative descriptions should replace grades and numerical ratings for clinical performance in medical education in the United States. Front Psychol. 2013;4:668. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00668.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ginsburg S,
    2. van der Vleuten CP,
    3. Eva KW,
    4. Lingard L
    . Cracking the code: residents' interpretations of written assessment comments. Med Educ. 2017;51(4):401-410. doi: 10.1111/medu.13158.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Bartels J,
    2. Mooney CJ,
    3. Stone RT
    . Numerical versus narrative: a comparison between methods to measure medical student performance during clinical clerkships. Med Teach. 2017;39(11):1154-1158. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1368467.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Ginsburg S,
    2. Kogan JR,
    3. Gingerich A,
    4. Lynch M,
    5. Watling CJ
    . Taken out of context: hazards in the interpretation of written assessment comments. Acad Med. 2020;95(7):1082-1088. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003047.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Jackson JL,
    2. Kay C,
    3. Jackson WC,
    4. Frank M
    . The quality of written feedback by attendings of internal medicine residents. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(7):973-978. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3237-2.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Branfield Day L,
    2. Miles A,
    3. Ginsburg S,
    4. Melvin L
    . Resident perceptions of assessment and feedback in competency-based medical education: a focus group study of one internal medicine residency program. Acad Med. 2020;95(11):1712-1717. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003315.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Ginsburg S,
    2. Gingerich A,
    3. Kogan JR,
    4. Watling CJ,
    5. Eva KW
    . Idiosyncrasy in assessment comments: do faculty have distinct writing styles when completing in-training evaluation reports? Acad Med. 2020;95(11 suppl):S81-S88. Association of American Medical Colleges Learn Serve Lead: Proceedings of the 59th Annual Research in Medical Education Presentations. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003643.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ramani S,
    2. Könings KD,
    3. Mann KV,
    4. Pisarski EE,
    5. van der Vleuten CPM
    . About politeness, face, and feedback: exploring resident and faculty perceptions of how institutional feedback culture influences feedback practices. Acad Med. 2018;93(9):1348-1358. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002193.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Watling CJ,
    2. Ginsburg S
    . Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning. Med Educ. 2019;53(1):76-85. doi: 10.1111/medu.13645.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    1. Tekian A,
    2. Park YS,
    3. Tilton S, et al
    . Competencies and feedback on internal medicine residents' end-of-rotation assessments over time: qualitative and quantitative analyses. Acad Med. 2019;94(12):1961-1969. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002821.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Dudek NL,
    2. Marks MB,
    3. Wood TJ, et al
    . Quality evaluation reports: can a faculty development program make a difference? Med Teach. 2012;34(11):e725-e731. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.689444.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Wilbur K
    . Does faculty development influence the quality of in-training evaluation reports in pharmacy? BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):222-017. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1054-5.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Dory V,
    2. Cummings BA,
    3. Mondou M,
    4. Young M
    . Nudging clinical supervisors to provide better in-training assessment reports. Perspect Med Educ. 2020;9(1):66-70. doi: 10.1007/s40037-019-00554-3.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Cheung WJ,
    2. Dudek NL,
    3. Wood TJ,
    4. Frank JR
    . Supervisor-trainee continuity and the quality of work-based assessments. Med Educ. 2017;51(12):1260-1268. doi: 10.1111/medu.13415.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Steinert Y,
    2. Mann K,
    3. Anderson B, et al
    . A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: a 10-year update: BEME guide no. 40. Med Teach. 2016;38(8):769-786. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2016.1181851.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Dudek NL,
    2. Marks MB,
    3. Bandiera G,
    4. White J,
    5. Wood TJ
    . Quality in-training evaluation reports—does feedback drive faculty performance? Acad Med. 2013;88(8):1129-1134. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318299394c.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Ericsson KA
    . Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med. 2004;79(10 suppl):S70-S81. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200410001-00022.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Kelly MS,
    2. Mooney CJ,
    3. Rosati JF,
    4. Braun MK,
    5. Thompson Stone R
    . Education research: the narrative evaluation quality instrument: development of a tool to assess the assessor. Neurology. 2020;94(2):91-95. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008794.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Downing SM
    . Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37(9):830-837. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Ginsburg S,
    2. Watling CJ,
    3. Schumacher DJ,
    4. Gingerich A,
    5. Hatala R
    . Numbers encapsulate, words elaborate: toward the best use of comments for assessment and feedback on entrustment ratings. Acad Med. 2021;96(7S):S81-S86. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004089.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Schuwirth LW,
    2. Van der Vleuten CP
    . Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33(6):478-485. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.565828.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Willett LL
    . The impact of a pass/fail step 1—a residency program director's view. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(25):2387-2389. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2004929.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Bryk AS,
    2. Raudenbush SW
    . Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc., 2002.
  35. 35.↵
    1. Rabe-Hesketh S,
    2. Skrondal A
    . Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. STATA Press, 2008.
  36. 36.↵
    1. Young JQ,
    2. Sewell JL
    . Applying cognitive load theory to medical education: construct and measurement challenges. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4(3):107-109. doi: 10.1007/s40037-015-0193-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Dudek NL,
    2. Marks MB,
    3. Wood TJ,
    4. Lee AC
    . Assessing the quality of supervisors' completed clinical evaluation reports. Med Educ. 2008;42(8):816-822. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03105.x.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Dudek NL,
    2. Marks MB,
    3. Wood TJ,
    4. Lee AC
    . Assessing the quality of supervisors' completed clinical evaluation reports. Med Educ. 2008;42(8):816-822. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03105.x.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Holmboe ES,
    2. Fiebach NH,
    3. Galaty LA,
    4. Huot S
    . Effectiveness of a focused educational intervention on resident evaluations from faculty a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(7):427-434. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016007427.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Littlefield JH,
    2. Darosa DA,
    3. Paukert J,
    4. Williams RG,
    5. Klamen DL,
    6. Schoolfield JD
    . Improving resident performance assessment data: numeric precision and narrative specificity. Acad Med. 2005;80(5):489-495. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200505000-00018.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Cook DA,
    2. Lineberry M
    . Consequences validity evidence: evaluating the impact of educational assessments. Acad Med. 2016;91(6):785-795. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Ericsson KA,
    2. Harwell KW
    . Deliberate practice and proposed limits on the effects of practice on the acquisition of expert performance: why the original definition matters and recommendations for future research. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2396. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02396.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Ericsson KA,
    2. Krampe RT,
    3. Tesch-Römer C
    . The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 1993;100(3):363-406. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    1. Macnamara BN,
    2. Hambrick DZ,
    3. Oswald FL
    . Deliberate practice and performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: a meta-analysis. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(8):1608-1618. doi: 10.1177/0956797614535810.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Hambrick DZ,
    2. Macnamara BN,
    3. Oswald FL
    . Is the deliberate practice view defensible? A review of evidence and discussion of issues. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1134. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01134.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    1. Cook DA,
    2. Beckman TJ
    . Reflections on experimental research in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15(3):455-464. doi: 10.1007/s10459-008-9117-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Campbell D,
    2. Stanley J
    . Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. 11th ed. R. McNally College Publishing Company, 1973.
  48. 48.↵
    1. Ginsburg S,
    2. van der Vleuten C,
    3. Eva KW,
    4. Lingard L
    . Hedging to save face: a linguistic analysis of written comments on in-training evaluation reports. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016;21(1):175-188. doi: 10.1007/s10459-015-9622-0.
    OpenUrl

Letters: Rapid online correspondence

No comments have been published for this article.
Comment

REQUIREMENTS

If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org

Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.

If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.

Submission specifications:

  • Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
  • Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
  • Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
  • Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
  • Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.

More guidelines and information on eLetters

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.

Alert Me