Development of a Tool to Measure Student Perceptions of Equity and Inclusion in Medical Schools.

Importance: Creating an inclusive and equitable learning environment is a national priority. Nevertheless, data reflecting medical students' perception of the climate of equity and inclusion are limited. Objective: To develop and validate an instrument to measure students' perceptions of the climate of equity and inclusion in medical school using data collected annually by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Design, Setting, and Participants: The Promoting Diversity, Group Inclusion, and Equity tool was developed in 3 stages. A Delphi panel of 9 members identified survey items from preexisting AAMC data sources. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was performed on student responses to AAMC surveys to construct the tool, which underwent rigorous psychometric validation. Participants were undergraduate medical students at Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools in the US who completed the 2015 to 2019 AAMC Year 2 Questionnaire (Y2Q), the administrations of 2016 to 2020 AAMC Graduation Questionnaire (GQ), or both. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to November 2023. Exposures: Student race and ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Development and psychometric validation of the tool, including construct validity, internal consistency, and criterion validity. Results: Delphi panel members identified 146 survey items from the Y2Q and GQ reflecting students' perception of the climate of equity and inclusion, and responses to these survey items were obtained from 54 906 students for the Y2Q cohort (median [IQR] age, 24 [23-26] years; 29 208 [52.75%] were female, 11 389 [20.57%] were Asian, 4089 [7.39%] were multiracial, and 33 373 [60.28%] were White) and 61 998 for the GQ cohort (median [IQR] age, 27 [26-28] years; 30 793 [49.67%] were female, 13 049 [21.05%] were Asian, 4136 [6.67%] were multiracial, and 38 215 [61.64%] were White). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of student responses identified 8 factors for the Y2Q model (faculty role modeling; student empowerment; student fellowship; cultural humility; faculty support for students; fostering a collaborative and safe environment; discrimination: race, ethnicity, and gender; and discrimination: sexual orientation) and 5 factors for the GQ model (faculty role modeling; student empowerment; faculty support for students; discrimination: race, ethnicity, and gender; and discrimination: sexual orientation). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated acceptable model fit (root mean square error of approximation of 0.05 [Y2Q] and 0.06 [GQ] and comparative fit indices of 0.95 [Y2Q] and 0.94 [GQ]). Cronbach α for individual factors demonstrated internal consistency ranging from 0.69 to 0.92 (Y2Q) and 0.76 to 0.95 (GQ). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that the new tool is a reliable and psychometrically valid measure of medical students' perceptions of equity and inclusion in the learning environment.

Coming face to face with implicit bias, microagressions, and macroaggressions: Understanding the influence of structural racism and misogyny on physician wellness.

Implicit bias, microaggressions, and macroaggressions have a negative impact on physician and trainee wellness. In this article, we describe how structural racism, misogyny, and other social constructs have shaped the medical landscape. Increasing awareness in medical education, patient care, and research can help to dismantle the effects.

They Don't See a Lot of People My Color: A Mixed Methods Study of Racial/Ethnic Stereotype Threat Among Medical Students on Core Clerkships.

PURPOSE: Stereotype threat is an important psychological phenomenon in which fear of fulfilling negative stereotypes about one's group impairs performance. The effects of stereotype threat in medical education are poorly characterized. This study examined the prevalence of racial/ethnic stereotype threat amongst fourth-year medical students and explored its impact on students' clinical experience. METHOD: This was an explanatory sequential mixed methods study at 2 institutions in 2019. First, the authors administered the quantitative Stereotype Vulnerability Scale (SVS) to fourth-year medical students. The authors then conducted semistructured interviews among a purposive sample of students with high SVS scores, using a qualitative phenomenographic approach to analyze experiences of stereotype threat. The research team considered reflexivity through group discussion and journaling. RESULTS: Overall, 52% (184/353) of students responded to the survey. Collectively, 28% of students had high vulnerability to stereotype threat: 82% of Black, 45% of Asian, 43% of Latinx, and 4% of White students. Eighteen students participated in interviews. Stereotype threat was a dynamic, 3-stage process triggered when students experienced the workplace through the colored lens of race/ethnicity by standing out, reliving past experiences, and witnessing microaggressions. Next, students engaged in internal dialogue to navigate racially charged events and workplace power dynamics. These efforts depleted cognitive resources and interfered with learning. Finally, students responded and coped to withstand threats. Immediate and deferred interventions from allies reduced stereotype threat. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotype threat is common, particularly among non-White students, and interferes with learning. Increased minority representation and developing evidence-based strategies for allyship around microaggressions could mitigate effects of stereotype threat.

Suspect/foil identification in actual crimes and in the laboratory: a reality monitoring analysis.

Four reality monitoring variables were used to discriminate suspect from foil identifications in 183 actual criminal cases. Four hundred sixty-one identification attempts based on five and six-person lineups were analyzed. These identification attempts resulted in 238 suspect identifications and 68 foil identifications. Confidence, automatic processing, eliminative processing and feature use comprised the set of reality monitoring variables. Thirty-five verbal confidence phrases taken from police reports were assigned numerical values on a 10-point confidence scale. Automatic processing identifications were those that occurred "immediately" or "without hesitation." Eliminative processing identifications occurred when witnesses compared or eliminated persons in the lineups. Confidence, automatic processing and eliminative processing were significant predictors, but feature use was not. Confidence was the most effective discriminator. In cases that involved substantial evidence extrinsic to the identification 43% of the suspect identifications were made with high confidence, whereas only 10% of the foil identifications were made with high confidence. The results of a laboratory study using the same predictors generally paralleled the archival results. Forensic implications are discussed.