Relationship Between Peer Assessment During Medical School, Dean’s Letter Rankings, and Ratings by Internship Directors
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
It is not known to what extent the dean’s letter (medical student performance evaluation [MSPE]) reflects peer-assessed work habits (WH) skills and/or interpersonal attributes (IA) of students.
To compare peer ratings of WH and IA of second- and third-year medical students with later MSPE rankings and ratings by internship program directors.
Design and Participants
Participants were 281 medical students from the classes of 2004, 2005, and 2006 at a private medical school in the northeastern United States, who had participated in peer assessment exercises in the second and third years of medical school. For students from the class of 2004, we also compared peer assessment data against later evaluations obtained from internship program directors.
Peer-assessed WH were predictive of later MSPE groups in both the second (F = 44.90, P < .001) and third years (F = 29.54, P < .001) of medical school. Interpersonal attributes were not related to MSPE rankings in either year. MSPE rankings for a majority of students were predictable from peer-assessed WH scores. Internship directors’ ratings were significantly related to second- and third-year peer-assessed WH scores (r = .32 [P = .15] and r = .43 [P = .004]), respectively, but not to peer-assessed IA.
Peer assessment of WH, as early as the second year of medical school, can predict later MSPE rankings and internship performance. Although peer-assessed IA can be measured reliably, they are unrelated to either outcome.
- American Association of Medical Colleges. A Guide to the Preparation of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation. Available at http://www.aamc.org/members/gsa/mspeguide.pdf. Accessed 6 Jun 2006.
- Hunt DD, MacLaren C, Scott C, Marshall SG, Braddock CH, Sarfaty S. Follow-up study of the characteristics of dean’s letters. Acad Med. 2001;76(7):727–33. CrossRef
- Leiden LI, Miller GD. National survey of writers of dean’s letters for residency applications. J Med Educ. 1986;61(12):943–53.
- Hunt DD, MacLaren CF, Scott CS, Chu J, Leiden LI. Characteristics of dean’s letters in 1981 and 1992. Acad Med. 1993;68(12):905–11. CrossRef
- Ozuah PO. Variability in deans’ letters. JAMA. 2002;288(9):1061. CrossRef
- Toewe CH 2nd, Golay DR. Use of class ranking in deans’ letters. Acad Med. 1989;64(11):690–1. CrossRef
- Yager J, Strauss GD, Tardiff K. The quality of deans’ letters from medical schools. J Med Educ. 1984;59(6):471–8.
- Edmond M, Roberson M, Hasan N. The dishonest dean’s letter: an analysis of 532 dean’s letters from 99 U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 1999;74(9):1033–5. CrossRef
- Provan JL, Cuttress L. Preferences of program directors for evaluation of candidates for postgraduate training. CMAJ. 1995;153(7):919–23.
- Lurie SJ, Lambert DR, Grady-Weliky TA. Relationship between dean’s letter groupings and later evaluations by residency program directors. Manuscript under review.
- Norcini JJ. Peer assessment of competence. Med Educ. 2003;37:539–43. CrossRef
- Lurie SJ, Nofziger A, Meldrum S, Mooney C, Epstein RE. Temporal and group-related trends in peer assessment amongst medical students. Med Educ. In press.
- Dannefer EF, Henson LC, Bierer SB, et al. Peer assessment of professional competence. Med Educ. 2005;39:713–22. CrossRef
- Papadakis M, Teherani A, Banach MA, et al. Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(25):2673–82. CrossRef
- Loeser H, Papadakis M. Promoting and assessing professionalism in the first two years of medical school. Acad Med. 2000;75(5):509–10. CrossRef
- Association of American Medical Colleges. Contemporary Issues in Medicine: Communication in Medicine. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 1999. Report 3 of the Medical School Objectives Project. Available at http://www.aamc.org/meded/msop/msop3.pdf. Accessed 6 Jun 2006
- DuBois JM, Burkemper J. Ethics education in U.S. medical schools: a study of syllabi. Acad Med. 2002;77(5):432–7. CrossRef
- Veloski JJ, Fields SK, Boex JR, Blank LL. Measuring professionalism: a review of studies with instruments reported in the literature between 1982 and 2002. Acad Med. 2005;80(4):366–70. CrossRef
- Kern DE, Branch WT Jr, Jackson JL, et al. General Internal Medicine Generalist Educational Leadership Group. Teaching the psychosocial aspects of care in the clinical setting: practical recommendations. Acad Med. 2005;80(1):8–20. CrossRef
- Arnold L, Shue CK, Kritt B, Ginsburg S, Stern DT. Medical students’ views on peer assessment of professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(9):819–824. CrossRef
- Dudek NL, Marks MB, Regehr G. Failure to fail: the perspectives of clinical supervisors. Acad Med. 2005;80(10 suppl):S84–7. CrossRef
- Relationship Between Peer Assessment During Medical School, Dean’s Letter Rankings, and Ratings by Internship Directors
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 22, Issue 1 , pp 13-16
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- undergraduate medical education
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Office of Educational Evaluation and Research, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 601, Rochester, NY, 14624, USA