Improving Clerkship Feedback With a New Evaluation form, a Retrospective Comparison


    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Local Mentor:Abigail Wolf, MDAPGO Advisor:Lee Learman, MD, PhDOBJECTIVE:To determine if a new evaluation process resulted in longer student evaluations by faculty.METHODS:After receiving IRB exemption a retrospective review of completed evaluations from third year obstetrics and gynecology clerkship students was completed. All students at a single institution were included from two academic years for 526 total evaluations. The control group was evaluated with a standard institutional form. The intervention group received a supplemental evaluation that the students distributed electronically to individual faculty they worked with. Student t-test and Chi squared analysis compared the word counts, the clinical grades, and the word count by location of the rotation. Grade distribution between the two years was also analyzed.RESULTS:The length of the comments increased by 49% (144 words to 216), two-tailed P-value <.01. Analyzing clinical grades showed: “good” comments decreased by 17% (162 to 134), “excellent” comments increased by 69% (110 to 186), “honors” comments increased by 61% (165 to 267). Nine of the ten sites showed word count increases ranging from 20-198%. Grade distribution showed no change in the clinical grade of “good”, the clinical grade of “excellent” decreased from 66% to 59% of the class and “honors” increased from 29% to 36%. No students received a marginal or failing grade.CONCLUSION:Changing the evaluation process yielded longer comments from the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. Students with higher clinical grades had the longest comments; students with the lowest clinical grade had the shortest comments. This may reflect that it is easier to give positive than negative feedback. With the intervention, a higher proportion of students received the clinical grade of honors.

    loading  Loading Related Articles