The influence of residents training level on their evaluation of clinical teaching faculty.

BACKGROUND: Evaluations by learners are the most common sources of information on teaching. There is some debate about the role of these assessments, but the overall evaluation of faculty by learners was found to be valid and reliable. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the level of training of family medicine residents and their evaluation of emergency medicine clinical teachers over time. METHODS: A prospective cohort analysis of 6 years of faculty evaluation of 115 teachers was conducted. RESULTS: The 562 residents returned 3,046 valid individual evaluations. There was no significant association between the level of residents' training and the ratings for clinical instruction (p > .05). Resident evaluations did not vary by time of year (p > .05); however, they did significantly differ by year of evaluation, showing that ratings increased over the 6 years of the study (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Neither the residents' level of training nor the timing during the academic year were significant independent predictors of perceived superior teaching performance, although ratings increased over the 6 years of the study.

Resident evaluation of clinical teachers based on teachers' certification.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of emergency medicine (EM) certification of clinical teaching faculty on evaluations provided by residents. METHODS: A prospective cohort analysis was conducted of assessments between July 1994 and July 2000 on residents' evaluations of EM faculty at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Resident- and faculty-related variables were entered anonymously using the validated evaluation tool (ER Scale). Credentialing and demographic information on EM faculty was supplemented by data obtained through a nine-question survey. Groups were compared using ANOVA. RESULTS: The 562 residents returned 705 (91%) valid evaluation sheets on 115 EM faculty members. The four domains of didactic teaching, clinical teaching, approachability, and helpfulness were assessed. The majority of ratings were in the very good or superb categories for each domain. Instructors with certification in EM had higher scores in didactic, clinical teaching compared with others, and teachers without national certification scored lower in the helpful and approachable categories (p < 0.05). The route of obtaining EM certifications either through training or practice eligibility did not affect scores. Instructors under the age of 40 years had higher scores than the older age groups in three of four categories (p < 0.05). Instructors working at the teaching sites on a half-time basis received higher scores than those working full-time, and scores varied based on site. Overall, teaching ratings improved over the study period (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist among instructors in the EM setting that affect their teaching rating scores. National certification in EM, academic track, rotation year, and site are all correlated with better teaching performance.