The "good" dean's Letter

Academic Medicine

Volumn 85, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 1705-1708

  Kiefer, Christopher S ^a   Colletti, James E ^a   Bellolio, M Fernanda ^a   Hess, Erik P ^a   Woolridge, Dale P ^b   Thomas, Kristen B ^a   Sadosty, Annie T ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649319494     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f55a10     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Korn SL, Stagnaro-Green A, Rose S. The dean's letter summary statement: Valuing scholarship, leadership, and academic achievement. Acad Med. 2001;76(10 suppl): S30-S32.
2. Shea JA, O'Grady E, Morrison G, Wagner BR, Morris JB. Medical student performance evaluations in 2005: An improvement over the former dean's letter? Acad Med. 2008;83:284-291.
3. Naidich JB, Lee JY, Hansen EC, Smith LG. The meaning of excellence. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:1121-1126.
4. "Good." In: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. Merriam-Springfield, Mass: Webster Incorporated; 1993:502.
5. Lurie SJ, Lambert DR, Grady-Weliky TA. Relationship between dean's letter rankings and later evaluations by residency program directors. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19:251-256.
6. Clemente M, Michener WM. The dean's letter of recommendation and internship performance. J Med Educ. 1976;51:590-592.
7. Green M, Jones P, Thomas JX. Selection criteria for residency: Results of a national program directors survey. Acad Med. 2009;84:362-367.
8. Swide C, Lasater K, Dillman D. Perceived predictive value of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) in anesthesiology resident selection. J Clin Anesth. 2009;21:38-43.
9. Wagoner NE, Suriano JR. A new approach to standardizing the dean's letter. Acad Med. 1989;64:688-689.
10. Hunt DD, MacLaren CF, Scott CS, Chu J, Leiden LI. Characteristics of dean's letters in 1981 and 1992. Acad Med. 1993;68:905-911.
11. Lee AG, Golnik KC, Oetting TA, et al. Reengineering the resident application selection process in ophthalmology: A literature review and recommendations for improvement. Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53:164-176.
12. Edmond M, Roberson M, Hasan N. The dishonest dean's letter: An analysis of 532 dean's letters from 99 U. S. medical schools. Acad Med. 1999;74:1033-1035.
13. Mallot D. Interview, dean's letter, and affective domain issues. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;449:56-61.
14. Badcock D, Kelly AM, Kerr D, Reade T. The quality of medical record review studies in the international emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;45:444-447.
15. Worster A, Bledsoe RD, Cleve P, Fernandes CM, Upadhye S, Eva K. Reassessing the methods of medical record review studies in emergency medicine research. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;45:448-451.
16. Gilbert EH, Lowenstein SR, Koziol-McLain J, Barta DC, Steiner J. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: Where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med. 1996;27:305-308.
17. Worster A, Haines T. Advanced statistics: Understanding medical record review (MRR) studies. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:187-192.