Tracking Peer Professionalism Measures in Preclinical Medical Students
Professionalism is a key competency in first year medical gross anatomy instruction, yet there is a paucity of longitudinal studies addressing professionalism attributes into year 2. This study longitudinally compared 160 preclinical medical students’ peer professionalism evaluations in two small group settings (year 1 anatomy lab and year 2 team-based learning (TBL) sessions) for 2013–2014 and 2014–2015.
Students were evaluated by their small group peers on a scale (0–3) on five professionalism domains (teamwork, honor/integrity, caring/compassion/communication, respect, responsibility/accountability) at mid-term and end of semester in years 1 and 2. Statistical comparisons were made between the formative (mid-gross) and summative (post-gross) anatomy ratings and between the summative anatomy (post-gross) and mid-term TBL (mid-iTBL) ratings.
Anatomy professionalism evaluations showed a significant increase from an average ranking of 2.49 at mid-term to 2.6 at the end of the semester, with increases in teamwork, honor/integrity, caring/compassion/communication, and respect. Summative anatomy evaluations (post-gross) were compared to mid-term second year TBL (mid-iTBL), showing significant increases in peer professionalism rankings with improvements in teamwork, honor/integrity, responsibility/accountability, and respect.
Significant improvements in peer evaluated professionalism were observed in multiple domains over time in the anatomy lab, with the exception of responsibility and accountability. These gains were maintained into year 2 TBL evaluations, with the exception of caring, compassion, and communication, suggesting that graded peer evaluation may improve professionalism behavior in small group settings.
KeywordsMedical education Professionalism Team based learning Gross Anatomy Peer evaluation
The authors gratefully acknowledge the School of Medicine Class of 2017 for their participation in the peer professionalism evaluation study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
A preliminary version of this study was presented as a platform presentation at the 2015 annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists.
- 3.Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME common program requirements. [downloaded 2016 May 3]. Available from: http://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs_07012015.pdf.
- 7.Kao A, Lim M, Spevick J, Teaching BB. Evaluating students’ professionalism in US medical schools. JAMA. 2003;290:1151–2.Google Scholar
- 8.Bandini J, Mitchell C, Epstein-Peterson Z, Amobi A, Cahill J, Peteet J, Balboni T, Balboni M. Student and faculty reflections of the hidden curriculum: how does the hidden curriculum shape students’ medical training and professionalization? Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2017;34:57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Pearson W, Hoagland T. Measuring change in professionalism attitudes during the gross anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:12–6.Google Scholar
- 13.Camp C, Gregory J, Lachman N, Chen L, Juskewitch J, Pawlina W. Comparative efficacy of group and individual feedback in gross anatomy for promoting medical student professionalism. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:64–72.Google Scholar
- 16.Alakija P, Lockyer J. Peer and self-assessment of professionalism in undergraduate medical students at the University of Calgary. Can Med Ed J. 2011;2:65–72.Google Scholar
- 21.Michaelsen L, Parmelee D, McMahon L, Revine R. Team-based learning for health professions education: a guide to using small groups for improving learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing; 2008.Google Scholar
- 30.Pawlina W, Hromanik MJ, Milanese TR, Dierkhising R, Viggiano T, Carmichael S. Leadership and professionalism curriculum in the gross anatomy course. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2006;35:609–14.Google Scholar
- 31.Bryan R, Krych A, Carmichael S, Viggiano T, Pawlina W. Assessing professionalism in early medical education: experience with peer evaluation self evaluation in the gross anatomy course. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2005;34:486–91.Google Scholar