CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Predictors of faculty narrative evaluation quality in medical school clerkships

Mooney, Christopher J., Pascoe, Jennifer M., Blatt, Amy E., Lang, Valerie J., Kelly, Michael S., Braun, Melanie K., Burch, Jaclyn E., Stone, Robert Thompson·2022·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/medu.14911
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Narrative approaches to assessment provide meaningful and valid representations of trainee performance. Yet, narratives are frequently perceived as vague, nonspecific and low quality. To date, there is little research examining factors associated with narrative evaluation quality, particularly in undergraduate medical education. The purpose of this study was to examine associations of faculty- and student-level characteristics with the quality of faculty member's narrative evaluations of clerkship students. METHODS: The authors reviewed faculty narrative evaluations of 50 students' clinical performance in their inpatient medicine and neurology clerkships, resulting in 165 and 87 unique evaluations in the respective clerkships. The authors evaluated narrative quality using the Narrative Evaluation Quality Instrument (NEQI). The authors used linear mixed effects modelling to predict total NEQI score. Explanatory covariates included the following: time to evaluation completion, number of weeks spent with student, faculty total weeks on service per year, total faculty years in clinical education, student gender, faculty gender, and an interaction term between student and faculty gender. RESULTS: Significantly higher narrative evaluation quality was associated with a shorter time to evaluation completion, with NEQI scores decreasing by approximately 0.3 points every 10 days following students' rotations (p = .004). Additionally, women faculty had statistically higher quality narrative evaluations with NEQI scores 1.92 points greater than men faculty (p = .012). All other covariates were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of faculty members' narrative evaluations of medical students was associated with time to evaluation completion and faculty gender but not faculty experience in clinical education, faculty weeks on service, or the amount of time spent with students. Findings advance understanding on ways to improve the quality of narrative evaluations which are imperative given assessment models that will increase the volume and reliance on narratives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.14911

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mooney, C. J., Pascoe, J. M., Blatt, A. E., Lang, V. J., Kelly, M. S., Braun, M. K., Burch, J. E., & Stone, R. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Mooney, Christopher J.
ORCID
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-08-23
Volume
56
Issue
12
Pages
1223-1231
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/medu.14911
OpenAlex
W4291019581
Cited by
10
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
narrative assessment, faculty assessment, medical clerkship, assessment quality, faculty gender, clinical performance assessment, undergraduate medical education, student-faculty interaction
MeSH terms
Clinical Clerkship, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Faculty, Medical, Female, Humans, Male, Schools, Medical, Students, Medical

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