Evaluating an instrument for the peer review of inpatient teaching

被引:50
|
作者
Beckman, TJ
Lee, MC
Rohren, CH
Pankratz, VS
机构
[1] Mayo Clin & Mayo Fdn, Div Gen Internal Med, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Mayo Clin & Mayo Fdn, Div Area Gen Internal Med, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[3] Mayo Clin & Mayo Fdn, Div Community Internal Med, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[4] Mayo Clin & Mayo Fdn, Dept Hlth Sci Res, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1080/0142159031000092508
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
The purpose of this study was to assess an instrument for the peer review of inpatient teaching at Mayo. The Mayo Teaching Evaluation Form (MTEF) is an instrument, based on the Stanford seven-category educational framework, which was developed for the peer review of inpatient teaching. The MTEF has 28 Likert-scaled items derived from the Stanford Faculty Development Program form (SFDP-26), the Mayo electronic evaluation form and three additional items. In this study three physician-evaluators used the MTEF to evaluate 10 attending physicians on the Mayo general internal medicine hospital services. Cronbach's alphas were used to assess the internal consistency of the MTEF, and Kendall's coefficient of concordance was used to summarize the inter-rater reliability. Results of this study reveal that the MTEF is internally consistent, based on average ratings across all evaluators (Cronbach's alpha = 0.894). Stanford categories with the highest alphas are Self-Directed Learning, Learning Climate, Communication of Goals, and Evaluation. Categories with lower alphas are Feedback, Understanding and Retention, and Control of Teaching Session. Additionally, the majority of items on the MTEF show significant agreement across all evaluators, and teacher enthusiasm was among the most reliable items. In conclusion, the MTEF is overall internally consistent for the peer review of inpatient teaching at Mayo. Hence, the MTEF may be a useful element in the peer evaluation of teaching at our institution.
引用
收藏
页码:131 / 135
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Evaluating the impact of accreditation and external peer review
    Kilsdonk, Melvin
    Siesling, Sabine
    Otter, Renee
    van Harten, Wim
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE, 2015, 28 (08) : 757 - +
  • [32] EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF PEER REVIEW FOR OSTEOPOROSIS SERVICES
    Thurston, Anne
    Clark, Rachel
    OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 29 : 629 - 630
  • [33] Peer-to-peer Teaching in Higher Education: A Critical Literature Review
    Stigmar, Martin
    MENTORING & TUTORING, 2016, 24 (02): : 124 - 136
  • [34] Teaching Professional Peer Review With the Use of Simulation
    Cole, Linda J.
    Andrighetti, Tia P.
    Thrower, Eileen J. B.
    Engstrom, Janet L.
    JOURNAL OF PERINATAL & NEONATAL NURSING, 2023, 37 (02) : 108 - 115
  • [35] Peer review of classroom teaching: an interim report
    Costello, J
    Pateman, B
    Pusey, H
    Longshaw, K
    NURSE EDUCATION TODAY, 2001, 21 (06) : 444 - 454
  • [36] TEACHING PEER REVIEW TO MEDICAL-STUDENTS
    MERENSTEIN, JH
    JOURNAL OF FAMILY PRACTICE, 1978, 6 (06): : 1301 - 1302
  • [37] Conceptions of peer review of teaching: a phenomenographic study
    Jacenyik-Trawoger, Christa
    Bosanquet, Agnes
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT, 2025,
  • [38] Using peer review to foster good teaching
    Samson, Sue
    McCrea, Donna
    REFERENCE SERVICES REVIEW, 2008, 36 (01) : 61 - +
  • [39] PEER TEACHING IN HIGHER-EDUCATION - REVIEW
    GOLDSCHMID, B
    GOLDSCHMID, ML
    HIGHER EDUCATION, 1976, 5 (01) : 9 - 33
  • [40] Develop your teaching through peer review
    Macdonald, Janet
    Kell, Clare
    EDUCATION FOR PRIMARY CARE, 2006, 17 (04) : 404 - 407