“On the same page”? The effect of GP examiner feedback on differences in rating severity in clinical assessments: a pre/post intervention study

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
File version

Version of Record (VoR)

Author(s)
Sturman, N
Ostini, R
Wong, WY
Zhang, J
David, M
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
2017
Size
File type(s)
Location
Abstract

Background: Robust and defensible clinical assessments attempt to minimise differences in student grades which are due to differences in examiner severity (stringency and leniency). Unfortunately there is little evidence to date that examiner training and feedback interventions are effective; “physician raters” have indeed been deemed “impervious to feedback”. Our aim was to investigate the effectiveness of a general practitioner examiner feedback intervention, and explore examiner attitudes to this. Methods: Sixteen examiners were provided with a written summary of all examiner ratings in medical student clinical case examinations over the preceding 18 months, enabling them to identify their own rating data and compare it with other examiners. Examiner ratings and examiner severity self-estimates were analysed pre and post intervention, using non-parametric bootstrapping, multivariable linear regression, intra-class correlation and Spearman’s correlation analyses. Examiners completed a survey exploring their perceptions of the usefulness and acceptability of the intervention, including what (if anything) examiners planned to do differently as a result of the feedback. Results: Examiner severity self-estimates were relatively poorly correlated with measured severity on the two clinical case examination types pre-intervention (0.29 and 0.67) and were less accurate post-intervention. No significant effect of the intervention was identified, when differences in case difficulty were controlled for, although there were fewer outlier examiners post-intervention. Drift in examiner severity over time prior to the intervention was observed. Participants rated the intervention as interesting and useful, and survey comments indicated that fairness, reassurance, and understanding examiner colleagues are important to examiners. Conclusions: Despite our participants being receptive to our feedback and wanting to be “on the same page”, we did not demonstrate effective use of the feedback to change their rating behaviours. Calibration of severity appears to be difficult for examiners, and further research into better ways of providing more effective feedback is indicated.

Journal Title

BMC Medical Education

Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume

17

Issue

1

Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement

© The Author(s). 2017. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated

Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject

Curriculum and pedagogy

Specialist studies in education

Persistent link to this record
Citation

Sturman, N; Ostini, R; Wong, WY; Zhang, J; David, M, “On the same page”? The effect of GP examiner feedback on differences in rating severity in clinical assessments: a pre/post intervention study, BMC Medical Education, 2017, 17 (1), pp. 101

Collections