PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Collective decision-making by grading committees has been proposed as a strategy to improve the fairness and consistency of grading and summative assessment compared to individual evaluations. In the 2020-2021 academic year, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis (WUSM) instituted grading committees in the assessment of third-year medical students on core clerkships, including the Internal Medicine clerkship. We explored how frontline assessors perceive the role of grading committees in the Internal Medicine core clerkship at WUSM and sought to identify challenges that could be addressed in assessor development initiatives.
METHODS: We conducted four semi-structured focus group interviews with resident (n = 6) and faculty (n = 17) volunteers from inpatient and outpatient Internal Medicine clerkship rotations. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Participants felt that the transition to a grading committee had benefits and drawbacks for both assessors and students. Grading committees were thought to improve grading fairness and reduce pressure on assessors. However, some participants perceived a loss of responsibility in students\' grading. Furthermore, assessors recognized persistent challenges in communicating students\' performance via assessment forms and misunderstandings about the new grading process. Interviewees identified a need for more training in formal assessment; however, there was no universally preferred training modality.
CONCLUSIONS: Frontline assessors view the switch from individual graders to a grading committee as beneficial due to a perceived reduction of bias and improvement in grading fairness; however, they report ongoing challenges in the utilization of assessment tools and incomplete understanding of the grading and assessment process.
METHODS: We conducted four semi-structured focus group interviews with resident (n = 6) and faculty (n = 17) volunteers from inpatient and outpatient Internal Medicine clerkship rotations. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Participants felt that the transition to a grading committee had benefits and drawbacks for both assessors and students. Grading committees were thought to improve grading fairness and reduce pressure on assessors. However, some participants perceived a loss of responsibility in students\' grading. Furthermore, assessors recognized persistent challenges in communicating students\' performance via assessment forms and misunderstandings about the new grading process. Interviewees identified a need for more training in formal assessment; however, there was no universally preferred training modality.
CONCLUSIONS: Frontline assessors view the switch from individual graders to a grading committee as beneficial due to a perceived reduction of bias and improvement in grading fairness; however, they report ongoing challenges in the utilization of assessment tools and incomplete understanding of the grading and assessment process.
摘要：
背景：已提出由评分委员会进行的集体决策作为一种策略，以提高与个人评估相比的评分和总结性评估的公平性和一致性。在2020-2021学年，圣路易斯华盛顿大学医学院（WUSM）成立了分级委员会，以评估三年级医学生的核心职员，包括内科医师.我们探讨了一线评估员如何看待分级委员会在WUSM内科核心书记中的作用，并试图确定可以在评估员发展计划中解决的挑战。
方法：我们对来自住院和门诊内科医师轮换的住院医师（n=6）和教职员工（n=17）志愿者进行了四次半结构化焦点小组访谈。使用主题分析对成绩单进行分析。
结果：参与者认为，向评分委员会的过渡对评估员和学生都有好处和缺点。评级委员会被认为可以提高评级公平性并减轻评估者的压力。然而,一些参与者认为学生在评分方面失去了责任感。此外，评估人员认识到，在通过评估表格和对新的评分过程的误解传达学生的表现方面存在持续的挑战。受访者认为需要更多的正式评估培训；然而，没有普遍首选的培训方式。
结论：前线评估员认为从个人分级员转变为分级委员会是有益的，因为他们认为偏见的减少和分级公平性的改善；然而，他们报告了在使用评估工具方面的持续挑战以及对评分和评估过程的不完全理解。
方法：我们对来自住院和门诊内科医师轮换的住院医师（n=6）和教职员工（n=17）志愿者进行了四次半结构化焦点小组访谈。使用主题分析对成绩单进行分析。
结果：参与者认为，向评分委员会的过渡对评估员和学生都有好处和缺点。评级委员会被认为可以提高评级公平性并减轻评估者的压力。然而,一些参与者认为学生在评分方面失去了责任感。此外，评估人员认识到，在通过评估表格和对新的评分过程的误解传达学生的表现方面存在持续的挑战。受访者认为需要更多的正式评估培训；然而，没有普遍首选的培训方式。
结论：前线评估员认为从个人分级员转变为分级委员会是有益的，因为他们认为偏见的减少和分级公平性的改善；然而，他们报告了在使用评估工具方面的持续挑战以及对评分和评估过程的不完全理解。
