Exploring individual opinions of potential evaluators in a 360-degree assessment: Four distinct viewpoints of a competent resident

Teaching and Learning in Medicine

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 314-322

  Thammasitboon, Satid ^a,d   Mariscalco, M Michele ^b   Yudkowsky, Rachel ^c   Hetland, Monte D ^c   Noronha, Peter A ^c   Mrtek, Robert G ^c  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^d WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EDUCATION; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; METHODOLOGY; PEDIATRICS; PSYCHOMETRY; STANDARD;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, GRADUATE; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; PEDIATRICS; PSYCHOMETRICS;

EID: 54049111800     PISSN: 10401334     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10401330802384680     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Swing SR. Assessing the ACGME general competencies: General considerations and assessment methods. Academic Emergency Medicine 2002;9:1278-88.
2. Risucci DA, Tortolani AJ, Ward RJ. Ratings of surgical residents by self, supervisors and peers. Surgery Gynecology & Obstetrics 1989;169:519-26.
3. Dimatteo DG, Farmer JC, Davis WR, et al. Sources of assessment of physician performance: A study of comparative reliability and patterns of intercorrelation. Medical Care 1981;19:829-42.
4. Rosendaal GMA. Comparing peer and faculty evaluations in an internal medicine residency. Academic Medicine 1994;69:299-303.
5. Toolbox of Assessment Methods, 2000 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Version 1.1.
6. Ramsay PG, Carline JD, Blank LL, Wenrich MD. Feasibility of hospital-based peer ratings to evaluate the performance of practising physicians. Academic Medicine 1996;71:364-70.
7. Archer JC, Norcini J. Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training. British Medical Journal, 2005;330:1251-3.
8. Archer JC, Norcini J, Southgate L. Mini-PAT (peer assessment tool): A valid component of a national assessment programme in the UK? Advances in Health Sciences Education 2008 13:181-92
9. Davies HA, Archer JC. Multi source feedback - development and practical aspects. Clinical Teacher, 2005;2:77-81.
10. Davies H, Archer J, Heard S, Southgate L. Assessment tools for foundation programmes - A practical guide. British Medical Journal Career Focus 2005;330:195-6.
11. Whitehouse A, Hassell A, Wood L, Wall D, Walzman M, Campbell I. Development and reliability testing of TAB a form for 360-degree assessment of senior house offices' professional behaviours, as specified by the General Medical Council. Medical Teacher 2005;27:252-8.
12. Sargeant J, Mann K. Exploring family physicians' reactions to multisource feedback: perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Medical Education 2005;39:497-504.
13. Evans R, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians. British Medical Journal 2004;328:1240-3.
14. Penny J. Differential item functioning in an international 360-degree assessment: Evidence of gender stereotype, environmental complexity, and organizational contingency. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 2001;10:245-71.
15. Worthen BR, Sanders JR, Fitzpatrick JL. Dealing with political, ethical, and interpersonal aspects of evaluation. In Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (pp. 309-340). New York: Longman, 1997.
16. Hans VP, Vidmar N. Jury selection. In NL Kerr and RM Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 39-82). New York: Academic, 1982.
17. Gutman S. The attorney conducts voir dire of jurors. Brooklyn Law Review 1972-1973;39:290-329.
18. Holdworth W. A history of English law XI. Boston: Little Brown, 1938.
19. Haig BD. An abductive theory of scientific method. Psychological Methods 2005;10:371-88.
20. Wong W, Eiser AR, Mrtek RG, Heckerling PS. By-person factor analysis in clinical ethical decision making: Q methodology in end-of-life care decisions. American Journal of Bioethics 2004;4:W8-22.
21. Brown SR. Political subjectivity: Applications of Qmethodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980.
22. Brown, SR. Q technique and method. In WD Berry and MS Lewis-Beck (Eds.), New tool for social scientists. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1986.
23. McKeon BF. Q methodology in political psychology: Theory and technique in psychoanalytic applications. Political Psychology, 1984;5:415-36.
24. Stephen, TD. Q methodology in communication science: An introduction. Communication Quarterly, 1985;33:193-208.
25. Stephenson W. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
26. Dennis KE, Goldberg AP. Weight control: Self-efficacy types and transitions affect weight-loss outcomes in obese women. Addictive Behaviors, 1996;21:103-16.
27. Stenner PH, Dancey CP, Watts S. The understanding of their illness amongst people with irritable bowel syndrome: A Q methodological study. Social Science & Medicine 200;51:439-52.
28. Glazer B, Straus A. The discovery of grounded theory. London: Weiderfiled & Nicholson, 1968.
29. Kinsey D, Kelly TC. Mixing methodologies: An aid in developing Q samples. Operant Subjectivity 1989;12:98-102.
30. Corea C. WebQSort Project. Cognitive Development Lab at Beckman Institute Web site. 〈http://q.sortserve.com/〉 Retrieved March 15, 2003.
31. Johnson D, Cujec B. Comparison of self, nurse, and physician assessment of residents rotating through an intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine 1998;26:1811-6.
32. Valenta AL, Wigger U. Q-methodology: Definition and application in health care informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1997;4:501-10.
33. Mrtek RG, Tafesse E, Wigger U. Q-methodology and subjective research. Journal of Social Administrative Pharmacy 1996;13(2):54-64.
34. McKeown B, Thomas D. Q-methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.
35. Barbosa JC, Willoughby P, Rosenberg CA, Mrtek RG. Statistical methodology: VII. Q methodology, a structural analytic approach to medical subjectivity. Academic Emergency Medicine 1998;5:1032-40.
36. Chinnis AS, Paulson DJ, Davis SM. Using Q methodology to assess the needs of emergency medicine support staff employees. Journal of Emergency Medicine 2001;20:197-203.