Comparison of anonymous student ballots with student debriefing for faculty evaluations

Pelsang, Retta E.; Smith, Wilbur L.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00565.x

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there are several published curricula on how faculty can provide effective feedback to medical trainees ( 1 , 10 , 16 – 21 ), there is a dearth of evidence on methods to improve trainee feedback of faculty. Pelsang and Smith have previously described group evaluation of faculty at the residency level ( 22 ). The authors of that study compared the numerical feedback score of faculty by residents individually and as a group, whereas our innovation evaluated trainee perceptions of the process and the quality of feedback.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better Together: Development and Implementation of Fellow Group Evaluations of Faculty

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background High-quality trainee evaluations of faculty are essential for meaningful faculty development and for improving the clinical learning environment. However, concerns about anonymity can limit usefulness of trainee evaluations, particularly in smaller programs, such as subspecialty fellowships. Objective To develop and implement a fellow-driven group evaluation process to enhance trainee confidentiality and generate high-quality feedback for pulmonary and critical care medicine faculty. Methods A novel process was developed for faculty evaluation and feedback consisting of quarterly, structured, fellow-led group evaluation sessions focused on collecting confidential, behaviorally oriented, actionable feedback for faculty. Upper-year fellow moderators utilized a standard format to structure discussion, generating strengths and areas for growth for each faculty member while explicitly asking for input from fellows with divergent perspectives. Moderators compiled anonymized session notes for the program director, who delivered feedback to individual faculty. After the first six sessions, an electronic survey was distributed to assess fellow perceptions of the group evaluation model. Results Thirty-seven faculty members were evaluated in 11 group sessions over 42 months. Fellows rated group-generated feedback as more confidential, more specific, more accurate, more efficient, more actionable, and less biased when compared with individual written evaluations ( P < 0.01 for all categories). Conclusion The authors successfully developed and implemented a process for fellow-led group evaluation of faculty, designed to facilitate fellow confidentiality and enrich the quality of feedback. Fellows preferred the group evaluation process and perceived group-generated feedback more favorably compared with individual written evaluations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better Together: Development and Implementation of Fellow Group Evaluations of Faculty

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The influence of anonymity on faculty evaluation ratings are consistent with those reported from the larger environment of higher education mentioned previously in this article, 12-16 but contrast with those reported by Pelsang and Smith. 7 These authors reported a pattern of increased evaluation ratings corresponding to the order of data collection methods used and suspect that the order and implementation may have contributed to the increasing positive ratings, with the anonymous rating forms being the last method.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%