Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians

British Medical Journal

Volumn 328, Issue 7450, 2004, Pages 1240-1243

  Evans, Richard ^a   Elwyn, Glyn ^a   Edwards, Adrian ^a  

^a SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA BASE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSTRUMENT; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PEER REVIEW; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PSYCHOMETRY; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SAMPLING; STANDARD; THEORETICAL STUDY; VALIDATION PROCESS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; PEER GROUP; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; PEER GROUP; PHYSICIANS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 2442675598     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7450.1240     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. O'Neill O. Reith lectures: a question of trust. BBC, 2002 (www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2002).
2. Violato C, Marini A, Toews J, Lockyer J, Fidler H. Feasibility and psychometric properties of using peers, consulting physicians, co-workers, and patients to assess physicians. Acad Med 1997;72(suppl):82-4.
3. Ramsey PG, Wenrich MD, Carline JD, Inui TS, Larson CT, LoGerfo JP. Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. JAMA 1993;269: 1655-60.
4. Ramsey P, Wenrich M. Peer ratings: an assessment tool whose time has come. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:581-2.
5. McLoed P, Tamblyn R. Faculty ratings of resident humanism predict patient satisfaction ratings in ambulatory medical clinics. J Gen Intern Med 1994;9:321-6.
6. Woolliscroft J, Howell J. Resident-patient interactions: the humanistic qualities of internal medicine residents assessed by patients, attending physicians, program supervisors and nurses. Acad Med 1994;69:216-24.
7. Goldman R. The reliability of peer assessments: a meta-analysis. Eval Health Prof 1994;17:3-21.
8. Saturno P, Heather Palmer R. Physician attitudes, self-estimated performance and actual compliance with locally peer-defined quality evaluation criteria. Int J Qual Healthcare 1999;11:487-96.
9. Ramsey P, Carline JD, Blank LL, Wenrich MD. Feasibility of hospital-based use of peer ratings to evaluate the performance of practicing physicians. Acad Med 1996;71:364-70.
10. Lipner R, Blank L. The value of patient and peer ratings in recertification. Acad Med 2002;77:S64-6.
11. Hall W, Violato C, Lewkonia R, Lockyer J, Fidler H, Toews J, et al. Assessment of physician performance in Alberta: the physician achievement review. CMAJ 1999;161:52-6.
12. Thomas P, Gebo K, Hellmann D. A pilot study of peer review in residency training. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:551-4.
13. American Board of Internal Medicine. Recertification: program for continuous professional development. www.abim.org/cpd/cpdhome/index.htm (accessed 23 Apr 2004).
14. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
15. Ramsey P, Carline JD, Inui TS, Larson EB, LoGerfo JP, Wenrich MD. Predictive validity of certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 1989;110:719-26.
16. Fidler H, Lockyer JM, Toews J, Violato C. Changing physicians' practices: the effect of individual feedback. Acad Med 1999;74:702-14.
17. Peirperl M. Conditions for the success of peer evaluation. Int J Hum Resour Manage 1999;10:429-58.
18. Atwater L. Self-other agreement: does it really matter? Personnel Psychology 1998;51:577-98.
19. Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 1954;7:117-40.
20. Fox S, Ben-Nahum Z. Perceived similarity and accuracy of peer ratings. J Applied Psychol 1989;74:781-6.
21. Mumford M. Social comparison theory and the evaluation of peer evaluation: a review and some applied implications. Personnel Psychology 1983;36:867-81.
22. Church A. Do you see what I see? An exploration of congruence in ratings from multiple perspectives. J Applied Soc Psychol 1997;27:983-1020.
23. Kaplan C, Centor R. The use of nurses to evaluate houseofficers' humanistic behaviour. J Gen Intern Med 1990;5:410-4.
24. Davis J. Comparison of faculty, peer, self, and nurse assessment of obstetrics and gynecology residents. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:647-51.
25. Van den Bos K. Procedural and distributive justice: what is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997;72:95-104.
26. Vuorinen R, Tarkka M. Peer evaluation in nurses' professional development: a pilot study to investigate the issues. J Clin Nurs 2000;9:273-81.