In the eyes of residents good supervisors need to be more than engaged physicians: the relevance of teacher work engagement in residency training
Open accessAbstract
During their development into competent medical specialists, residents benefit from their attending physicians' excellence in teaching and role modelling. Work engagement increases overall job performance, but it is unknown whether this also applies to attending physicians' teaching performance and role modelling. Attending physicians in clinical teaching practice take on roles as doctors and teachers. Therefore, this study (a) examined levels of attending physicians' work engagement in both roles, and (b) quantified the relationships of both work engagement roles to their teaching performance and role model status. In this multicenter survey, residents evaluated attending physicians' teaching performance and role model status using the validated System for Evaluation of Teaching Qualities. Attending physicians self-reported their work engagement on a 7-point scale, separately for their roles as doctors and teachers, using the validated 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. In total, 549 (68 %) residents filled out 4,305 attending physician evaluations and 627 (78 %) attending physicians participated. Attending physicians reported higher work engagement in their doctor than in their teacher roles (mean difference: 0.95; 95 % CI 0.86-1.04; p < 0.001). Teacher work engagement was positively related to teaching performance (regression coefficient, B: 0.11; 95 % CI 0.08-0.14; p < 0.001), which in turn was positively associated to role model status (B: 1.08; 95 % CI 0.10-1.18; p < 0.001). In the eyes of residents, good supervisors need to be more than engaged physicians, as attending physicians with high teacher work engagement were evaluated as better teachers.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 35
- Authors
- Scheepers, R. A., Arah, O. A., Heineman, M. J., & Lombarts, K. M. J. M. H.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Scheepers, Renée A.
- Venue
- Advances in Health Sciences Education
- Published
- 2014-08-15
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 441-455
- ISSN
- 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1677
- OpenAlex
- W2025664660
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 2.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pure.amsterdamumc.nl
- Licence
- other-oa
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
- Keywords
- work engagement, attending physicians, residency training, medical education, teaching performance, role modeling, resident evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Faculty, Medical, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Male, Medical Staff, Hospital, Netherlands, Physician's Role, Physicians, Teaching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
