Do Studentsʼ and Authorsʼ Genders Affect Evaluations? A Linguistic Analysis of Medical Student Performance Evaluations

Abstract

Purpose Recent guidelines for the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) have standardized the “dean’s letter.” The authors examined MSPEs for linguistic differences according to student or author gender. Method This 2009 study analyzed 297 MSPEs for 227 male and 70 female medical students applying to a diagnostic radiology residency program. Text analysis software identified word counts, categories, frequencies, and contexts; factor analysis detected patterns of word categories in student–author gender pairings. Results Analyses showed a main effect for student gender (P=.046) and a group difference for the author–student gender combinations (P=.048). Female authors of male student MSPEs used the fewest “positive emotion” words (P=.006). MSPEs by male authors were shorter than those by females (P=.014). MSPEs for students ranked in the National Resident Matching Program contained more “standout” (P=.002) and “positive emotion” (P=.001) words. There were no differences in the author–gender pairs in the proportion of students ranked, although predominant word categories differed by author and student gender. Factor analysis revealed differences among the author–student groups in patterns of correlations among word categories. Conclusions MSPEs differed slightly but significantly by student and author gender. These differences may derive from societal norms for male and female behaviors and the subsequent linguistic interpretation of these behaviors, which itself may be colored by the observer’s gender. Although the differences in MSPEs did not seem to influence students’ rankings, this work underscores the need for awareness of the complex effects of gender in evaluating students and guiding their specialty choices.

Women Are Less Likely Than Men to Be Full Professors in Cardiology

“…Isaac et al found evidence of such subtle socialization of male and female medical students toward gender congruent specialties in a text analysis of Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPEs). 3 Within cardiology, such “gender tracking” may contribute to the persistent underrepresented of women in the highly remunerated, highly technical agentic areas of interventional and electrophysiology cardiology subspecialties, compared to the greater representation of women in the more communal general and non-invasive areas of cardiology. The conflation of gender and status may also help explain the consistent finding of lower salaries among female than male physicians in nearly all specialties including cardiology.…”

“…Ensuring that hiring and promotion committees commit to the value of credentials before evaluating individual applicants may also reduce gender bias. 3 External conferral of status such as endowing professorships for women leaders may help counteract the implicit assumption that women are of lower status than comparable men. 15 …”

Underrepresentation of women in the senior levels of Brazilian science

“…The smaller amount of funding awarded to female scientists was only found in Life Sciences (<30,000 BRL versus <120,000 BRL). In Biomedical sciences, women also get smaller grants than men in the US (Pohlhaus et al, 2011) and the UK (Bedi, Van Dam & Munafo, 2012). …”

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

“…We wrote an R program that matched the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC, 2007) program used in our previous study 16,38 and used it to detect 7 categories of words relevant to scientific grant evaluation in each critique and criteria subsection (see Kaatz et al 16 for full lists of words in each category): 16,18,22,24,38,39 ability (e.g., able, skill), 16,22,24,39 achievement (e.g., awards, honors), 16,38 agentic (e.g., competent, leader), 16,18,39 negative evaluation (e.g., unclear, illogical), 16 positive evaluation (e.g., solid, feasible), 16 research (e.g., productivity, grant), 16,22,24,39 and standout adjectives (e.g., exceptional, outstanding). 16,22,24,39 …”