The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SPECIAL ARTICLE: Cognitive, Social and Environmental Sources of Bias in Clinical Performance Ratings
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global ratings based on observing convenience samples of clinical performance form the primary basis for appraising the clinical competence of medical students, residents, and practicing physicians. This review explores cognitive, social, and environmental factors that contribute unwanted sources of score variation (bias) to clinical performance evaluations. SUMMARY: Raters have a 1 or 2-dimensional conception of clinical performance and do not recall details. Good news is reported more quickly and fully than bad news, leading to overly generous performance evaluations. Training has little impact on accuracy and reproducibility of clinical performance ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical performance evaluation systems should assure broad, systematic sampling of clinical situations; keep rating instruments short; encourage immediate feedback for teaching and learning purposes; encourage maintenance of written performance notes to support delayed clinical performance ratings; give raters feedback about their ratings; supplement formal with unobtrusive observation; make promotion decisions via group review; supplement traditional observation with other clinical skills measures (e.g., Objective Structured Clinical Examination); encourage rating of specific performances rather than global ratings; and establish the meaning of ratings in the manner used to set normal limits for clinical diagnostic investigations.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Naegele, K. D., & Goffman, E. (1956) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089106 · Cited by 25,991
(1993) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(93)91697-o · Cited by 18,154
(2020) · Journal of Medical Education · doi:10.5812/jme · Cited by 3,490
Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning
Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1978) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674189089 · Cited by 1,377
Processes affecting scores on "understanding of others" and "assumed similarity."
Cronbach, L. J. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0044919 · Cited by 1,368
Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.81.6.660 · Cited by 924
Simulation Technology for Health Care Professional Skills Training and Assessment
Issenberg, S. B. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.861 · Cited by 914
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.87.1.72 · Cited by 838
The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence.
Wright, P. (1974) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037186 · Cited by 751
Assessment of clinical skills with standardized patients: State of the art
van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Swanson, D. B. (1990) · Teaching and Learning in Medicine · doi:10.1080/10401339009539432 · Cited by 572
Cited by
Barry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500046924 · Cited by 3,966
Self-citationA critical review of simulation‐based medical education research: 2003–2009
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x · Cited by 1,733
Self-citationAssessing professional competence: from methods to programmes
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Schuwirth, L. W. T. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02094.x · Cited by 1,268
A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose.
van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Driessen, E. W., Dijkstra, J., Tigelaar, D., Baartman, L. K. J., & van Tartwijk, J. (2012) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.652239 · Cited by 892
Competency-based medical education in postgraduate medical education
Iobst, W. F., Sherbino, J., Cate, O. T., Richardson, D. L., Dath, D., Swing, S. R., Harris, P., Mungroo, R., Holmboe, E. S., Frank, J. R., et al. (2010) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2010.500709 · Cited by 478
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, R. G., Klamen, D. A., & McGaghie, W. C.
- Venue
- Teaching and Learning in Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 270-292
- ISSN
- 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8015
- OpenAlex
- W2068757607
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 85
- FWCI
- 11.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: SPECIAL ARTICLE: Cognitive, Social and Environmental Sources of Bias in Clinical Performance Ratings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15328015tlm1504_11
- The paper
- Williams, R. G., Klamen, D. A., & McGaghie, W. C. (2003). SPECIAL ARTICLE: Cognitive, Social and Environmental Sources of Bias in Clinical Performance Ratings. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1504_11
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
