TY - JOUR
T1 - Peer evaluation in a clinical clerkship
T2 - Students' attitudes, experiences, and correlations with traditional assessments
AU - Levine, Ruth E.
AU - Kelly, P. Adam
AU - Karakoc, Tayfun
AU - Haidet, Paul
PY - 2007/1
Y1 - 2007/1
N2 - Objective: The authors performed this study to determine whether clerkship peer evaluations, initiated as part of our "team-based learning" curriculum in 2002, correlated with other student performance measures, and to determine what qualities students rate in their peer evaluations. Method: The authors correlated peer evaluation scores with other student performance measures and performed a qualitative examination of student comments to assess reasons students gave for giving high and low scores. Results: Peer evaluation scores correlated modestly with the National Board of Medical Examiners' (NBME) subject test, in-class quiz, and clinical scores. Qualitative comments demonstrated that students made assessments based on three thematic areas: personal attributes, team contributions, and cognitive abilities. Conclusions: Peers' evaluation scores modestly predict which students will perform well on other measures. However, there may be other qualities that are also important factors in peer evaluation. For example, most students value qualities of preparation and participation. Though students sometimes dislike peer evaluations, their assessments may enhance traditional course assessments and complement a comprehensive evaluation strategy.
AB - Objective: The authors performed this study to determine whether clerkship peer evaluations, initiated as part of our "team-based learning" curriculum in 2002, correlated with other student performance measures, and to determine what qualities students rate in their peer evaluations. Method: The authors correlated peer evaluation scores with other student performance measures and performed a qualitative examination of student comments to assess reasons students gave for giving high and low scores. Results: Peer evaluation scores correlated modestly with the National Board of Medical Examiners' (NBME) subject test, in-class quiz, and clinical scores. Qualitative comments demonstrated that students made assessments based on three thematic areas: personal attributes, team contributions, and cognitive abilities. Conclusions: Peers' evaluation scores modestly predict which students will perform well on other measures. However, there may be other qualities that are also important factors in peer evaluation. For example, most students value qualities of preparation and participation. Though students sometimes dislike peer evaluations, their assessments may enhance traditional course assessments and complement a comprehensive evaluation strategy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33947538992&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33947538992&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1176/appi.ap.31.1.19
DO - 10.1176/appi.ap.31.1.19
M3 - Article
C2 - 17242048
AN - SCOPUS:33947538992
SN - 1042-9670
VL - 31
SP - 19
EP - 24
JO - Academic Psychiatry
JF - Academic Psychiatry
IS - 1
ER -