A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity.

BACKGROUND: Mentorship plays an essential role in enhancing the success of junior faculty. Previous evaluation tools focused on specific types of mentors or mentees. The main objective was to develop and provide validity evidence for a Mentor Evaluation Tool (MET) to assess the effectiveness of one-on-one mentoring for faculty in the academic health sciences. METHODS: Evidence was collected for the validity domains of content, internal structure and relationship to other variables. The 13 item MET was tested for internal structure evidence with 185 junior faculty from Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. Finally, the MET was studied for additional validity evidence by prospectively enrolling mentees of three different groups of faculty (faculty nominated for, or winners of, a lifetime achievement in mentoring award; faculty graduates of a mentor training program; and faculty mentors not in either of the other two groups) at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and asking them to rate their mentors using the MET. Mentors and mentees were clinicians, educators and/or researchers. RESULTS: The 13 MET items mapped well to the five mentoring domains and six competencies described in the literature. The standardized Cronbach's coefficient alpha was 0.96. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a single factor (CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.05). The three mentor groups did not differ in the single overall assessment item (P = 0.054) or mean MET score (P = 0.288), before or after adjusting for years of mentoring. The mentorship score means were relatively high for all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Mentor Evaluation Tool demonstrates evidence of validity for research, clinical, educational or career mentors in academic health science careers. However, MET did not distinguish individuals nominated as outstanding mentors from other mentors. MET validity evidence can be studied further with mentor-mentee pairs and to follow prospectively the rating of mentors before and after a mentorship training program.

Visiting Professorship in Academic Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Visiting professorship is an enjoyable activity that is also influential in academic promotional processes as evidence of the invitee's national reputation. Little is known, however, about the factors considered when selecting visiting professors (VPs) or whether this practice reflects objective criteria. We sought to characterize the process and diversity of participants in visiting professorships within academic radiation oncology (RO) to determine whether opportunities are equitably distributed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Surveys were distributed to program directors (PDs) of every 2018 RO residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. PDs were asked to identify all VPs over the past 2 years and to describe their departments' decision-making processes. Publicly available demographic and academic characteristics were obtained for each VP, and results were compared by VP gender and hosting program (HP) 2019 Doximity rank using the χ2 test for categorical data and t test for continuous data. RESULTS: The PD response rate was 60 of 93 (65%); 6 surveys were ≥50% incomplete and were excluded. Over a 2-year timeframe, 51 of 54 departments hosted 233 VPs, of whom 29% were women. The mean number of hosted VPs (5; range, 1-19) and gender distribution (35% women; range, 0-100%) did not significantly differ by HP rank (P = .17 and 0.65, respectively), nor did the selection criteria by which VPs were primarily chosen (subject matter expertise, teaching reputation, and resident interest). Women received significantly lower honoraria amounts than men (P = .035) despite no significant differences by gender in academic rank (P = .71), VP department rank (0.19), or M-index (0.83). CONCLUSION: Although sample size is limited, this study suggests that academic RO programs have a relatively equitable approach to selecting VPs that emphasizes trainee education and reflects the gender diversity of RO faculty more generally. Care should be taken to ensure that these similarly qualified women are offered the same monetary amount of honoraria as their male colleagues.

Gender Differences in Faculty Rank Among Academic Emergency Physicians in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to complete a comprehensive analysis of gender differences in faculty rank among U.S. emergency physicians that reflected all academic emergency physicians. METHODS: We assembled a comprehensive list of academic emergency medicine (EM) physicians with U.S. medical school faculty appointments from Doximity.com linked to detailed information on physician gender, age, years since residency completion, scientific authorship, National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding, and participation in clinical trials. To estimate gender differences in faculty rank, multivariable logistic regression models were used that adjusted for these factors. RESULTS: Our study included 3,600 academic physicians (28%, or 1,016, female). Female emergency physicians were younger than their male colleagues (mean [±SD] age was 43.8 [±8.7] years for females and 47.4 [±9.9] years for males [p < 0.001]), had fewer years since residency completion (12.4 years vs. 15.6 years, p < 0.001), had fewer total and first/last author publications (4.7 vs. 8.6 total publications, p < 0.001; 4.3 vs. 7.1 first or last author publications, p < 0.001), and were less likely to be principal investigators on NIH grants (1.2% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.002) or clinical trials (1.8% vs. 4.4%, p < 0.001). In unadjusted analysis, male physicians were more likely than female physicians to hold the rank of associate or full professor versus assistant professor (13.7 percentage point difference, p < 0.001), a relationship that persisted after multivariable adjustment (5.5 percentage point difference, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Female academic EM physicians are less likely to hold the rank of associate or full professor compared to male physicians even after detailed adjustment for other factors that may influence faculty rank.

Tenure Appointments for Faculty of Clinical Departments at U.S. Medical Schools: Does Specialty Designation Make a Difference?

PURPOSE: To describe differences and trends among clinical specialty departments in number and percentage of tenure-related appointments for full-time faculty. METHOD: Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster annual snapshot reports were used to calculate percentages of full-time faculty holding tenure-related appointments in each of the database's 17 groupings of clinical specialty departments. Faculty numbers and percentages by track were compared to investigate trends for 2006 to 2016. RESULTS: In the decade 2006-2016, the number of individuals on tenure-related tracks in clinical departments declined by 0.8% (276/33,610), but those on nontenure appointments increased by 60.5% (36,444/60,195). The number reporting "tenure not available" rose by 58.9% (4,467/7,574). Currently, 62% to 82% of full-time faculty in clinical departments are on nontenure tracks. Specialties differ significantly in current percentage and in rate of change in both numbers and percentage of tenure-related appointments. In 2016, faculty on tenure-related tracks ranged from 34.5% (295/855) in public health and preventive medicine to 13.5% (654/5,654) in family medicine. The most significant drops in percentage of tenure-related appointments in 2006-2016 were in surgery, pediatrics, and internal medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Dramatic changes in size and track distribution of faculty are occurring at significantly different rates across clinical specialty departments. The number of individuals on tenure-related tracks remains relatively stable, but the percentage of such faculty in clinical specialty departments continues to drop dramatically in almost all specialties. The growing dominance of nontenure appointments has important implications for career development and academic promotion policies and practices in all specialties.

Does the H Index Correlate With Academic Rank Among Full-Time Academic Craniofacial Surgeons?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between the H index and the academic rank among full-time academic craniofacial surgeons. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of full-time academic craniofacial surgeons. SETTING: Data were compiled and analyzed at the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital. RESULTS: The study sample included 127 full-time academic craniofacial surgeons. Overall, 89% were men, the mean number of years since completion of training was 16.2 ± 11.2 years. Most surgeons had a background in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Approximately 75% had completed formal fellowship training. The mean H index for the sample was 12.4 ± 9.9. The H index was strongly correlated with academic rank (rs = 0.62, p < 0.001). In a multiple linear regression model, adjusting for multiple confounders/effect modifiers, including number of years since training and total number of publications, the H index was significantly associated with academic rank (coefficient = 0.33, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Among full-time academic craniofacial surgeons, the H index is strongly correlated with the academic rank.

Working Definitions of the Roles and an Organizational Structure in Health Professions Education Scholarship: Initiating an International Conversation.

PROBLEM: Health professions education scholarship (HPES) is an important and growing field of inquiry. Problematically, consistent use of terminology regarding the individual roles and organizational structures that are active in this field are lacking. This inconsistency impedes the transferability of current and future findings related to the roles and organizational structures of HPES. APPROACH: Based on data collected during interviews with HPES leaders in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the Netherlands, the authors constructed working definitions for some of the professional roles and an organizational structure that support HPES. All authors reviewed the definitions to ensure relevance across multiple countries. OUTCOMES: The authors define and offer illustrative examples of three professional roles in HPES (clinician educator, HPES research scientist, and HPES administrative leader) and an organizational structure that can support HPES participation (HPES unit). These working definitions are foundational and not all-encompassing and, thus, are offered as stimulus for international dialogue and understanding. NEXT STEPS: With these working definitions, scholars and administrative leaders can examine HPES roles and organizational structures across and between national contexts to decide how lessons learned in other contexts can be applied to their local contexts. Although rigorously constructed, these definitions need to be vetted by the international HPES community. The authors argue that these definitions are sufficiently transferable to support such scholarly investigation and debate.