Show simple item record

Medical Students' Views on Peer Assessment of Professionalism

dc.contributor.authorArnold, Louiseen_US
dc.contributor.authorShue, Carolyn K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKritt, Barbaraen_US
dc.contributor.authorGinsburg, Shiphraen_US
dc.contributor.authorStern, David T.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T18:50:42Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T18:50:42Z
dc.date.issued2005-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationArnold, Louise; Shue, Carolyn K.; Kritt, Barbara; Ginsburg, Shiphra; Stern, David T. (2005). "Medical Students' Views on Peer Assessment of Professionalism." Journal of General Internal Medicine 20(9): 819-824. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72039>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0884-8734en_US
dc.identifier.issn1525-1497en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72039
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16117749&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractAlthough peer assessment holds promise for assessing professionalism, reluctance and refusal to participate have been noted among learners and practicing physicians. Understanding the perspectives of potential participants may therefore be important in designing and implementing effective peer assessment. Objective : To identify factors that, according to students themselves, will encourage or discourage participation in peer assessment. Design : A qualitative study using grounded theory to interpret views shared during 16 focus groups that were conducted by leaders using a semi-structured guide. Participants : Sixty-one students in Years 1, 3, and 4 in 2 mid-western public medical schools. Results : Three themes students say would promote or discourage peer assessment emerged: personal struggles with peer assessment, characteristics of the assessment system itself, and the environment in which the system operates. Students struggle with reporting an unprofessional peer lest they bring harm to the peer, themselves, or their clinic team or work group. Who receives the assessment and gives the peer feedback and whether it is formative or summative and anonymous, signed, or confidential are important system characteristics. Students' views of characteristics promoting peer assessment were not unanimous. Receptivity to peer reports and close positive relationships among students and between students and faculty mark an environment conducive to peer assessment, students say. Conclusions : The study lays a foundation for creating acceptable peer assessment systems among students by soliciting their views. Merely introducing an assessment tool will not result in students' willingness to assess each other.en_US
dc.format.extent94013 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Science Incen_US
dc.rights© 2005 by the Society of General Internal Medicine. All rights reserveden_US
dc.subject.otherPeer Assessmenten_US
dc.subject.otherProfessionalismen_US
dc.subject.otherMedical Studentsen_US
dc.subject.otherEvaluationen_US
dc.titleMedical Students' Views on Peer Assessment of Professionalismen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialtiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich, USA ;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan Medical School and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Mich, USA.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Mo, USA ;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada ;en_US
dc.identifier.pmid16117749en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72039/1/j.1525-1497.2005.0162.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0162.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of General Internal Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArnold L. Assessing professional behavior: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Acad Med. 2002; 77: 502 – 15.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArnold L, Stern DT. Content and context of peer assessment. In: Stern DT, ( ed. ) Measuring Medical Professionalism. London: Oxford University Press; 2005: (forthcoming).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMontgomery BM. An interactionist analysis of small group peer assessment. Small Group Behav. 1986; 17: 19 – 37.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmall PA, Stevens CB, Duerson MC. Issues in medical education: basic problems and potential solutions. Acad Med. 1993; 68 ( suppl ): 89S – 98S.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHundert EM, Douglas-Steele D, Bickel J. Context in medical education: the informal ethics curriculum. Med Educ. 1996; 30: 353 – 64.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGinsburg S, Regehr G, Hatala R, et al. Context, conflict, and resolution: a new conceptual framework for evaluating professionalism. Acad Med. 2000; 75 ( suppl ): 6S – 11S.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRamsey PG, Wenrich MD, Carline JD, et al. Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. JAMA. 1993; 269: 1655 – 60.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNorcini JJ. Peer assessment of competence. Med Educ. 2003; 37: 539 – 43.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArnold L, Willoughby L, Calkins V, et al. Use of peer evaluation in the assessment of medical students. J Med Educ. 1981; 56: 35 – 42.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLinn BS, Arostegui M, Zeppa R. Performance rating scale for peer and self-assessment. Br J Med Educ. 1975; 9: 98 – 101.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThomas PA, Gebo KA, Hellmann DB. A pilot study of peer review in residency training. J Gen Intern Med. 1999; 14: 551 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Rosendaal GMA, Jennett PA. Resistance to peer evaluation in an internal medicine residency. Acad Med. 1992; 67: 63.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRennie SC, Crosby JR. Students' perceptions of whistle blowing: implications for self-regulation. A questionnaire and focus group survey. Med Educ. 2002; 36: 173 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFriedson E. Profession of Medicine; a Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co.; 1970.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorgan DL. The Focus Group Guidebook: Focus Group Kit 1. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGlaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter; 1999.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInui T. The Flag in the Wind: Educating for Professionalism in Medicine. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2003.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePapadakis MA, Hodgson CS, Teherani A, Kohatsu ND. Unprofessional behavior in medical school is associated with subsequent disciplinary action by a state medical board. Acad Med. 2004; 79: 244 – 9.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.