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
  • [41] Peer-supported review of teaching: an evaluation
    Thampy, Harish
    Bourke, Michael
    Naran, Prasheena
    EDUCATION FOR PRIMARY CARE, 2015, 26 (05) : 306 - 310
  • [42] Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching
    Gusic, Maryellen
    Hageman, Heather
    Zenni, Elisa
    CLINICAL TEACHER, 2013, 10 (05): : 287 - 290
  • [43] Investigating Mandatory Peer Review Of Teaching In Schools
    Brix, Jacinta
    Grainger, Peter
    Hill, Angela
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION, 2014, 39 (04): : 83 - 99
  • [44] Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education
    Cowan, John
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 45 (03) : E18 - E19
  • [45] TEACHING PEER REVIEW AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
    GREENBAUM, DS
    HOBAN, JD
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, 1976, 51 (05): : 392 - 394
  • [46] A different method of teaching peer review systems
    Lightfoot, JT
    ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION, 1998, 19 (01) : S57 - S61
  • [47] Peer review to improve artificial intelligence teaching
    Garcia, Raquel M. Crespo
    Roman, Julio Villena
    Pardo, Abelardo
    36TH ANNUAL FRONTIERS IN EDUCATION, CONFERENCE PROGRAM, VOLS 1-4: BORDERS: INTERNATIONAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL, 2006, : 1088 - +
  • [48] Peer review of teaching to promote learning outcomes
    Burke, Chris
    MICROBIOLOGY AUSTRALIA, 2010, 31 (01) : 14 - 16
  • [49] EXPERT - EXercise for PEer Led Review and Teaching
    Pizzimenti, Marc A.
    FASEB JOURNAL, 2018, 32 (01):
  • [50] Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing
    Guilford, WH
    ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2001, 25 (03) : 167 - 175