To the point: medical education review of the RIME method for the evaluation of medical student clinical performance

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 197, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 123-133

  Espey, Eve ^a   Nuthalapaty, Francis ^b   Cox, Sue ^c   Katz, Nadine ^d   Ogburn, Tony ^e   Peskin, Ted ^f   Goepfert, Alice ^g   Hammoud, Maya ^h   Casey, Petra ⁱ   Emmons, Sandra ^j   Neutens, James J ^k  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE GREENVILLE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^h WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (Qatar)

ⁱ MAYO CLINIC COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^j OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

clinical performance evaluation; medical education; RIME method

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; GYNECOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; METHODOLOGY; OBSTETRICS; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RESIDENCY EDUCATION; REVIEW; SKILL;

CLINICAL CLERKSHIP; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; GYNECOLOGY; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; OBSTETRICS; STUDENTS, MEDICAL;

EID: 34547568990     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.04.006     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Metheny W.P., Espey E., Bienstock J., et al. To the point: Medical education reviews evaluation in context: Assessing learners, teachers, and training programs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192 (2005) 34-37
2. Pangaro LN, McGaghie WC. Evaluation and grading of students. In Carnahan D, Hemmer PA, editors. Guidebook for clerkship, 3rd ed. Accessed May 30, 2007. Available at http://familymed.uthscsa.edu/ACE/chapter6.htm.
3. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies. Last accessed: October 8, 2006. Available at: http://www.acgme.org/outcome/comp/compFull.asp.
4. Herbert W.N.P., Cummings R.V., and Droegemueller W. Profile of student clerkship administration in obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 76 (1990) 153-155
5. Zahn C.M., Nalesnik S.W., Armstrong A.Y., Satin A.J., and Haffner W.H.J. Variation in medical student grading criteria: a survey of clerkships in obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190 (2004) 1388-1393
6. Goepfert A.R., Phelan S.P., Cliver S.P., and Herbert W.N.P. An evaluation of trends in obstetrics and gynecology clerkships in the United States and Canada. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191 (2004) 354-358
7. Tonesk X., and Buchanan R.G. An AAMC pilot study by 10 medical schools of clinical evaluation of students. J Med Educ (1987) 707-718
8. Williams R.G., Klamen D.A., and McGaghie W.C. Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings. Teach Learn Med 15 (2003) 270-292
9. Hunt D.D. Functional and dysfunctional characteristics of the prevailing model of clinical evaluation systems in North American medical schools. Acad Med 67 (1992) 254-259
10. Schwiebert L.P. How required US family medicine clerkships and preceptorships evaluate medical students. Fam Med 28 (1996) 559-564
11. Hemmer P.A., and Pangaro L.P. The effectiveness of formal evaluation sessions during clinical clerkships in better identifying students with marginal funds of knowledge. Acad Med 72 (1997) 641-643
12. Pangaro L. A new vocabulary and other innovations for improving descriptive in-training evaluations. Acad Med 74 (1999) 1203-1207
13. Ogburn T., and Espey E. The RIME method for evaluation of medical students on an obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189 (2003) 666-669
14. Aagard E., and Teherani A. Effectiveness of the one-minute preceptor model for diagnosing the patient and the learner: proof of concept. Acad Med 79 (2004) 42-49