A new vocabulary and other innovations for improving descriptive in- training evaluations

Louis Pangaro*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

214 Scopus citations

Abstract

Progress in improving the credibility of teachers' descriptive evaluations of students and residents has not kept pace with the progress made in improving the credibility of more quantified methods, such as multiple-choice examinations and standardized patient examinations of clinical skills. This article addresses innovative approaches to making the ongoing in-training evaluation (ITEv) of trainees during their clinical experiences more reliable and valid. The innovations include the development of a standard vocabulary for describing the progress of trainees from 'reporter' to 'interpreter' to 'manager and 'educator' (RIME), the use of formal evaluation sessions, and closer consideration of the unit of clinical evaluation (the case, the rotation, or the year). The authors also discusses initial results of studies assessing the reliability and validity of descriptive methods, as well as the use of quantified methods to complement descriptive methods. Applying basic principles - the use of a taxonomy of professional development and statistical principles of reliability and validity - may foster research into more credible descriptive evaluation of clinical skills.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1203-1207
Number of pages5
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume74
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A new vocabulary and other innovations for improving descriptive in- training evaluations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this