Learning to lead: Self‐ and peer evaluation of team leaders in the human structure didactic block

Abstract

Increasing emphasis on leadership in medical education has created a need for developing accurate evaluations of team leaders. Our study aimed to compare the accuracy of self- and peer evaluation of student leaders in the first-year Human Structure block (integrated gross anatomy, embryology, and radiology). Forty-nine first-year medical students at Mayo Medical School were assigned to learning teams of three or four members. Teams worked together on daily laboratory dissection, clinical projects, embryology presentations, and daily group quizzes. Student team leaders were responsible for leading laboratory dissection, reviewing radiographic findings, and organizing group assignments. Weekly electronic surveys were administered to evaluate team leaders on altruism, compassion, respect, integrity, responsibility, commitment to excellence, and self-reflection. Results demonstrated that team leaders rated themselves lower than their peers rated them in multiple aspects of leadership. Peer evaluation of team leaders was statistically higher than self-evaluation in all traits measured except respect. Female leaders were rated higher by their peers in the areas of responsibility and self-reflection compared to male leaders. This study demonstrates the need for increased communication between team leaders and members, along with creation of a mutually respectful environment, to improve leader awareness of their abilities and foster team success.

The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization

“…Furthermore, developing leadership adaptability contributes to optimal healthcare delivery due to more effective interpersonal and communication skills with the healthcare team, patients, and their families Swartz, 2006). Essential non-technical transferable skills with respect to qualities such as altruism, integrity, compassion among other desirable characteristics can be introduced and evaluated at medical school through peerevaluation to provide leader awareness (Chen et al, 2009;Pearson and Hoagland, 2009). Hence, offering constructive criticism (Pabst et al, 2001) to the demonstrators via evaluation forms (Yamashina, 1999) after every session is vital so that their instructional skills can gradually reach a level of proficiency for the benefit of teaching future generations of healthcare professionals.…”

Comparative efficacy of group and individual feedback in gross anatomy for promoting medical student professionalism

“…Delivering and receiving peer feedback regarding professional behavior is integral to students' professional development (Pangaro and McGaghie, 2005;Reed et al, 2008;Chen et al, 2009). This feedback can allow students to gauge their performance in various aspects of education and patient care.…”

Reliability and validity of student peer assessment in medical education: A systematic review

“…Most studies considered professional behaviour as the main subject of assessment (Bryan et al 2005;Cottrell et al 2006;Kovach et al 2009), whereas other studies focused on topics such as leadership capacities (Chen et al 2009), interview skills (Rudy et al 2001;Perera et al 2010) or problem-based performance (Sullivan et al 1999;Papinczak et al 2007a,b;Amato & Novales-Castro 2009). The majority of the studies used peer assessment mainly as an assessment tool.…”

“…Six studies provided no psychometric data (Willoughby et al 1979;Alagna & Reddy 1985;Amato & Novales-Castro 2009;Chen et al 2009;Nofziger et al 2010;Perera et al 2010). Only a few studies (Cottrell et al 2006;Roark et al 2006;O'Brien et al 2008) described the concept of content validity: the extent to which the domain of interest was sampled comprehensively by the items in the questionnaire (Terwee et al 2007).…”