Letter to the Editor

Problems with Subjective In-training Evaluations

Authors: Wayne S. Kendal, MD, PhD, Robert MacRae, MD, Paul Dagg, MD

Abstract

How does a program assess the clinical performance of physician trainees? In-training evaluations (ITEs) were created for this purpose.1ITEs should be based on training objectives, recent faculty observations, and reflect a fair and equitable process. However, most ITEs are subjective1 and can thus be subject to many kinds of bias.2–4Faculty may also have difficulty in providing negative evaluations—particularly if they have experienced a complaint regarding their past evaluations.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Turnbull J, Gray J, MacFadyen J. Improving in-training evaluation programs. J Gen Intern Med1998;13:317–323.
 
2. Lacorte MA, Risucci DA. Personality, clinical performance and knowledge in pediatric residents. Med Educ 1993;27:165–169.
 
3. van der Vleuten CPM, Norman GR, de Graaff E. Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: issues of reliability. Med Educ 1991;25:110–118.
 
4. Maxim BR, Dielman TE. Dimensionality, internal consistency and inter rater reliability of clinical performance ratings. Med Educ 1987;27:130–137.