Toward meaningful evaluation of medical trainees: the influence of participants’ perceptions of the process
- First Online:
An essential goal of evaluation is to foster learning. Across the medical education spectrum, evaluation of clinical performance is dominated by subjective feedback to learners based on observation by expert supervisors. Research in non-medical settings has suggested that participants’ perceptions of evaluation processes exert considerable influence over whether the feedback they receive actually facilitates learning, but similar research on perceptions of feedback in the medical setting has been limited. In this review, we examine the literature on recipient perceptions of feedback and how those perceptions influence the contribution that feedback makes to their learning. A focused exploration of relevant work on this subject in higher education and industrial psychology settings is followed by a detailed examination of available research on perceptions of evaluation processes in medical settings, encompassing both trainee and evaluator perspectives. We conclude that recipients’ and evaluators’ perceptions of an evaluation process profoundly affect the usefulness of the evaluation and the extent to which it achieves its goals. Attempts to improve evaluation processes cannot, therefore, be limited to assessment tool modification driven by reliability and validity concerns, but must also take account of the critical issue of feedback reception and the factors that influence it. Given the unique context of clinical performance evaluation in medicine, a research agenda is required that seeks to more fully understand the complexity of the processes of giving, receiving, interpreting, and using feedback as a basis for real progress toward meaningful evaluation.
KeywordsEvaluation Feedback Medical students Perceptions Residents
- Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. (2007). Common program requirements (Revised July 1, 2007). Accessed December 16, 2009. http://www.acgme.org.
- Barrows, H. S. (1986). The scope of clinical education. In J. A. D. Cooper (Ed.), Clinical education of medical students. Journal of Medical Education, 61(9 Part 2), 23–33.Google Scholar
- Daelmans, H. E. M., Overmeer, R. M., van der Hem-Stokroos, H. H., Scherpbier, A. J. J. A., Stehouwer, C. D. A., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006). In-training assessment: Qualitative study of effects on supervision and feedback in an undergraduate clinical rotation. Medical Education, 40, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Isaacson, J. H., Posk, L. K., Litaker, D. G., & Halperin, A. K. (1998). Resident perception of the evaluation process (abstract). Journal of General Internal Medicine, 10(suppl), 89.Google Scholar
- Liason Committee on Medical Education. (2008). Current LCME accreditation standards: Structure and function of a medical school (Revised June, 2008). Accessed December 16, 2009. http://www.lcme.org.
- Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J. R. P. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 42(1), 123–129.Google Scholar
- Mowday, R. T. (1983). Beliefs about the causes of behaviour: The motivational implications of attribution processes. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Pasquina, P. F., Kelly, S., & Hawkins, R. E. (2003). Assessing clinical competence in physical medicine and rehabilitation residency programs. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, 473–478.Google Scholar
- The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. (2006). General standards of accreditation (Revised June 2006). Accessed December 16, 2009. http://www.rcpsc.edu.
- Thompson, P. H., & Dalton, G. W. (1970). Performance appraisal: Managers beware. Harvard Business Review, 48, 149–157.Google Scholar
- Watling, C. J., Kenyon, C. F., Schulz, V., et al. (2010). First do no harm: Challenges to faculty engagement in the resident in-training evaluation process. Academic Medicine, 85, 7.Google Scholar