Clerkship Grading Committees: the Impact of Group Decision-Making for Clerkship Grading
Faculty and students debate the fairness and accuracy of medical student clerkship grades. Group decision-making is a potential strategy to improve grading.
To explore how one school’s grading committee members integrate assessment data to inform grade decisions and to identify the committees’ benefits and challenges.
This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with grading committee chairs and members conducted between November 2017 and March 2018.
Participants included the eight core clerkship directors, who chaired their grading committees. We randomly selected other committee members to invite, for a maximum of three interviews per clerkship.
Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis.
We interviewed 17 committee members. Within and across specialties, committee members had distinct approaches to prioritizing and synthesizing assessment data. Participants expressed concerns about the quality of assessments, necessitating careful scrutiny of language, assessor identity, and other contextual factors. Committee members were concerned about how unconscious bias might impact assessors, but they felt minimally impacted at the committee level. When committee members knew students personally, they felt tension about how to use the information appropriately. Participants described high agreement within their committees; debate was more common when site directors reviewed students’ files from other sites prior to meeting. Participants reported multiple committee benefits including faculty development and fulfillment, as well as improved grading consistency, fairness, and transparency. Groupthink and a passive approach to bias emerged as the two main threats to optimal group decision-making.
Grading committee members view their practices as advantageous over individual grading, but they feel limited in their ability to address grading fairness and accuracy. Recommendations and support may help committees broaden their scope to address these aspirations.
KEY WORDSmedical education-qualitative methods medical education-undergraduate evaluation clerkship grading group decision-making grading committees clinical competence
All funding for this project was provided by the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Institutional Review Board approved this study as exempt. We emailed a consent document in advance, discussed it before interviews, and obtained verbal consent.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
- 1.National Resident Matching Program. Data Release and Research Committee. Results of the 2016 NRMP Program Director Survey. http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NRMP-2016-Program-Director-Survey.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2018.
- 10.Hauer KE, Ten Cate O, Boscardin CK, et al. Ensuring Resident Competence: A Narrative Review of the Literature on Group Decision Making to Inform the Work of Clinical Competency Committees. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8(2):156–64.Google Scholar
- 18.Lee KB, Jeffe DB. “Making the Grade:” Noncognitive Predictors of Medical Students’ Clinical Clerkship Grades. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99(10):1138–50.Google Scholar
- 25.Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Common Program Requirements. http://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs_2017-07-01.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2018.
- 26.Surowiecki J. The Wisdom of Crowds. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group; 2005.Google Scholar
- 29.Klocke, U. How to improve decision making in small groups: Effects of dissent and training interventions. Small Group Res. 2007;38(3):437–68.Google Scholar
- 40.Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The constant comparative method in qualitative analysis. In: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Transaction; 1967.Google Scholar
- 46.Janis IL. Groupthink. Psychol Today 1971;5:43–6, 74-6.Google Scholar
- 47.Kinnear B, Warm EJ, Hauer KE. Twelve tips to maximize the value of a clinical competency committee in postgraduate medical education. Med Teach. 2018.Google Scholar