Determining Grades in the Internal Medicine Clerkship: Results of a National Survey of Clerkship Directors

Multivariate Modeling of Student Performance on NBME Subject Exams

Aim This study sought to determine whether it was possible to develop statistical models which could be used to accurately correlate student performance on clinical subject exams based on their National Board of Medical Examiner (NBME) self-assessment performance and other variables, described below, as such tools are not currently available.  Methods Students at a large public medical school were provided fee vouchers for NBME self-assessments before clinical subject exams. Multivariate regression models were then developed based on how self-assessment performance correlated to student success on the subsequent subject exam (Medicine, Surgery, Family Medicine, Obstetrics-Gynecology, Pediatrics, and Psychiatry) while controlling for the proximity of the self-assessment to the exam, USMLE Step 1 score, and the academic quarter. Results The variables analyzed satisfied the requirements of linear regression. The correlation strength of individual variables and overall models varied by discipline and outcome (equated percent correct or percentile, Model R² Range: 0.1799-0.4915). All models showed statistical significance on the Omnibus F-test (p<0.001). Conclusion The correlation coefficients demonstrate that these models have weak to moderate predictive value, dependent on the clinical subject, in predicting student performance; however, this varies widely based on the subject exam in question. The next step is to utilize these models to identify struggling students to determine if their use reduces failure rates and to further improve model accuracy by controlling for additional variables.

Medical Faculty and Medical Student Opinions on the Utility of Questions to Teach and Evaluate in the Clinical Environment

Objectives

We sought to report medical student and faculty perceptions of the purpose and utility of questions on clinical rounds.

Methods

We developed and administered a survey to third and fourth-year medical students and teaching physicians. The survey elicited attitudes about using questions to teach on rounds in both benign and malignant learning environments.

Results

Ninety-seven percent of faculty and 85% of students predicted they will use questions to teach. Nine percent of students described learning-impairing stress during benign bedside teaching. Fifty-nine percent of faculty felt questions were mostly for teaching; 74% of students felt questions were mostly for evaluation. Forty-six percent of students felt questions underestimated their knowledge. Students felt questions were more effective for classroom teaching than bedside teaching. Faculty and students agreed that a malignant environment detrimentally affected learning and performance.

Conclusions

Students and faculty supported the use of questions to teach and evaluate, especially in benign teaching environments. Many students described stress severe enough to affect their learning and performance, even when questioned in benign teaching environments. Faculty underestimated the degree to which students experience stress-related learning impairment and the degree to which students see questions as evaluation rather than teaching. Nearly half of students felt that questions underestimated their own knowledge. Students feel more stress and less learning when questioned with a patient present. Faculty must realize that even in the best learning environment some students experience stress-impaired learning and performance, perhaps because of the conflict between learning and evaluation.

EPMO: A novel medical student assessment tool that integrates entrustable professional activities, prime, and the modified Ottawa coactivity scale

PURPOSE

Alignment of workplace-based assessments (WPBA) with core entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for entering residency may provide opportunities to monitor student progress across the continuum of undergraduate medical education. Core EPAs, however, reflect tasks of varying degrees of difficulty and faculty assessors are not accustomed to rating students based on entrustability. Expectations of student progress should vary depending on the complexity of the tasks associated with the EPAs. An assessment tool that orients evaluators to the developmental progression of specific EPA tasks will be critical to fairly evaluate learners.

METHODS

The authors developed an EPA assessment tool combining the frameworks of Professionalism, Reporter, Interpreter, Manager, Educator (PRIME), and Modified Ottawa coactivity scales. Only those EPAs that could be repeatedly observed and assessed across clinical clerkships were included. From July 2019 to March 2020, third-year medical students across multiple clerkships were assessed using this tool. The authors hypothesized that if the tool was applied correctly, ratings of learner independence would be lower with higher complexity tasks and that such ratings would increase over the course of year with ongoing clinical learning.

RESULTS

Assessment data for 247 medical students were similar across clerkships suggesting that evaluators in diverse clinical contexts were able to use this tool to assign scores reflective of developing entrustability in the workplace. Faculty rated student entrustability highest in skills emphasized in the pre-clerkship curriculum (professionalism and reporter) and progressively lower in more advanced skills (interpreter and manager). Students' ratings increased over time with more clinical exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors developed a composite WBPA tool that combines the frameworks of EPAs, PRIME, and Modified Ottawa Co- Activity and demonstrated the usability of applying it for learner assessments in clinical settings. Further multicenter studies with cohorts of pre- and post-clerkship students may provide additional validity evidence for the tool.

Hawks and Doves: Perceptions and Reality of Faculty Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Internal medicine clerkship grades are important for residency selection, but inconsistencies between evaluator ratings threaten their ability to accurately represent student performance and perceived fairness. Clerkship grading committees are recommended as best practice, but the mechanisms by which they promote accuracy and fairness are not certain. The ability of a committee to reliably assess and account for grading stringency of individual evaluators has not been previously studied.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of evaluations completed by faculty considered to be stringent, lenient, or neutral graders by members of a grading committee of a single medical college. Faculty evaluations were assessed for differences in ratings on individual skills and recommendations for final grade between perceived stringency categories. Logistic regression was used to determine if actual assigned ratings varied based on perceived faculty's grading stringency category.

RESULTS

"Easy graders" consistently had the highest probability of awarding an above-average rating, and "hard graders" consistently had the lowest probability of awarding an above-average rating, though this finding only reached statistical significance only for 2 of 8 questions on the evaluation form (P = .033 and P = .001). Odds ratios of assigning a higher final suggested grade followed the expected pattern (higher for "easy" and "neutral" compared to "hard," higher for "easy" compared to "neutral") but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived differences in faculty grading stringency have basis in reality for clerkship evaluation elements. However, final grades recommended by faculty perceived as "stringent" or "lenient" did not differ. Perceptions of "hawks" and "doves" are not just lore but may not have implications for students' final grades. Continued research to describe the "hawk and dove effect" will be crucial to enable assessment of local grading variation and empower local educational leadership to correct, but not overcorrect, for this effect to maintain fairness in student evaluations.

Score Gains on the NBME Subject Examinations in Internal Medicine Among Clerkship Students: a Two-Year Longitudinal Study from the United Arab Emirates

BACKGROUND

The impact of clinical proficiency on individual student scores on the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Subject Examinations remains uncertain. We hypothesised that increasing the length of time spent in a clinical environment would augment students' performance.

METHODS

Performance on the NBME Subject Examination in Internal Medicine (NBME-IM) of three student cohorts was observed longitudinally. Scores at the end of two unique internal medicine clerkships held at the third and fourth years were compared. The score differences between the two administrations were compared using paired t-tests, and the effect size was measured using Cohen's d. Moreover, linear regression was used to assess the correlation between the NBME-IM score gains and performance on a pre-clinical Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (CBSE). A two-tailed p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Of the 236 students enrolled during the third year, age, gender, CBSE, and NBME-IM scores were similar across all cohorts. The normalised score gain on the NBME-IM at the fourth year was 9.5% (range -38 to +45%) with a Cohen's d of 0.47. However, a larger effect size with a Cohen's d value of 0.96 was observed among poorly scoring students. Performance on the CBSE was a significant predictor of score gain on the NBME-IM (R 0.51, R ² 0.26, p-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increased length of clinical exposure, modest improvement in students' performance on repeated NBME-IM examination was observed. Medical educators need to reconsider how the NBME-IM is used in clerkship assessments.

Roles and Responsibilities of Medicine Subinternship Directors : Medicine Subinternship Director Roles

BACKGROUND

The internal medicine (IM) subinternship (also referred to as acting internship) plays a crucial part in preparing medical students for residency. The roles, responsibilities, and support provided to subinternship directors have not been described.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to describe the current role of IM subinternship directors with respect to their responsibilities, salary support, and reporting structure.

DESIGN

Nationally representative, annually recurring thematic survey of IM core clerkship directors with membership in an academic professional association as of September 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 129 core clinical medicine clerkship directors at Liaison Committee on Medical Education fully accredited U.S./U.S.-territory-based medical schools.

MAIN MEASURES

Responsibilities, salary support, and reporting structure of subinternship directors.

KEY RESULTS

The survey response rate was 83.0% (107/129 medical schools). Fifty-one percent (54/107) of respondents reported overseeing both core clerkship inpatient experiences and/or one or more subinternships. For oversight, 49.1% (28/53) of subinternship directors also reported that they were the clerkship director, 26.4% (14/53) that another faculty member directed all medicine subinternships, and 18.9% (10/53) that each subinternship had its own director. The most frequently reported responsibilities for the subinternship directors were administration, including scheduling, and logistics of student schedules (83.0%, 44/53), course evaluation (81.1%, 43/53), and setting grades 79.2% (42/53). The modal response for estimated FTE per course was 10-20% FTE, with 33.3% (16/48) reporting this level of support and 29.2% (14/54) reporting no FTE support.

CONCLUSIONS

The role of the IM subinternship director has become increasingly complex. Since the IM subinternship is critical to preparing students for residency, IM subinternship directors require standard expectations and adequate support. Future studies are needed to determine the appropriate level of support for subinternship directors and to define essential roles and responsibilities.

Excellence in medical training: developing talent-not sorting it

Many medical schools have reconsidered or eliminated clerkship grades and honor society memberships. National testing organizations announced plans to eliminate numerical scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 in favor of pass/fail results. These changes have led some faculty to wonder: "How will we recognize and reward excellence?" Excellence in undergraduate medical education has long been defined by high grades, top test scores, honor society memberships, and publication records. However, this model of learner excellence is misaligned with how students learn or what society values. This accolade-driven view of excellence is perpetuated by assessments that are based on gestalt impressions influenced by similarity between evaluators and students, and assessments that are often restricted to a limited number of traditional skill domains. To achieve a new model of learner excellence that values the trainee's achievement, growth, and responsiveness to feedback across multiple domains, we must envision a new model of teacher excellence. Such teachers would have a growth mindset toward assessing competencies and learning new competencies. Actualizing true learner excellence will require teachers to change from evaluators who conduct assessments of learning to coaches who do assessment for learning. Schools will also need to establish policies and structures that foster a culture that supports this change. In this new paradigm, a teacher's core duty is to develop talent rather than sort it.

Gender Disparity in Evaluation of Internal Medicine Clerkship Performance

IMPORTANCE

Women studying medicine currently equal men in number, but evidence suggests that men and women might not be evaluated equally throughout their education.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether there are differences associated with gender in either objective or subjective evaluations of medical students in an internal medicine clerkship.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This single-center retrospective cohort study evaluated data from 277 third-year medical students completing internal medicine clerkships in the 2017 to 2018 academic year at an academic hospital and its affiliates in Pennsylvania. Data were analyzed from September to November 2020.

EXPOSURE

Gender, presumed based on pronouns used in evaluations.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Likert scale evaluations of clinical skills, standardized examination scores, and written evaluations were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate linear regression were used to observe trends in measures. Word embeddings were analyzed for narrative evaluations.

RESULTS

Analyses of 277 third-year medical students completing an internal medicine clerkship (140 women [51%] with a mean [SD] age of 25.5 [2.3] years and 137 [49%] presumed men with a mean [SD] age of 25.9 [2.7] years) detected no difference in final grade distribution. However, women outperformed men in 5 of 8 domains of clinical performance, including patient interaction (difference, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.04-0.13]), growth mindset (difference, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.01-0.11]), communication (difference, 0.05 [95% CI, 0-0.12]), compassion (difference, 0.125 [95% CI, 0.03-0.11]), and professionalism (difference, 0.07 [95% CI, 0-0.11]). With no difference in examination scores or subjective knowledge evaluation, there was a positive correlation between these variables for both genders (women: r = 0.35; men: r = 0.26) but different elevations for the line of best fit (P < .001). Multivariate regression analyses revealed associations between final grade and patient interaction (women: coefficient, 6.64 [95% CI, 2.16-11.12]; P = .004; men: coefficient, 7.11 [95% CI, 2.94-11.28]; P < .001), subjective knowledge evaluation (women: coefficient, 6.66 [95% CI, 3.87-9.45]; P < .001; men: coefficient, 5.45 [95% CI, 2.43-8.43]; P < .001), reported time spent with the student (women: coefficient, 5.35 [95% CI, 2.62-8.08]; P < .001; men: coefficient, 3.65 [95% CI, 0.83-6.47]; P = .01), and communication (women: coefficient, 6.32 [95% CI, 3.12-9.51]; P < .001; men: coefficient, 4.21 [95% CI, 0.92-7.49]; P = .01). The model based on the men's data also included growth mindset as a significant variable (coefficient, 4.09 [95% CI, 0.67-7.50]; P = .02). For narrative evaluations, words in context with "he or him" and "she or her" differed, with agentic terms used in descriptions of men and personality descriptors used more often for women.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite no difference in final grade, women scored higher than men on various domains of clinical performance, and performance in these domains was associated with evaluators' suggested final grade. The content of narrative evaluations significantly differed by student gender. This work supports the hypothesis that how students are evaluated in clinical clerkships is associated with gender.