| Title |
Faculty development for the evaluation system: a dual agenda
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s124004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kellee L Oller, Cuc T Mai, Robert J Ledford, Kevin E O’Brien |
| Abstract |
Faculty development for the evaluation process serves two distinct goals. The first goal is to improve the quality of the evaluations submitted by the faculty. Providing an accurate assessment of a learner's capabilities is a skill and, similar to other skills, can be developed with training. Frame-of-reference training serves to calibrate the faculty's standard of performance and build a uniform language of the evaluation. Second, areas for faculty professional growth can be identified from data generated from learners' evaluations of the faculty using narrative comments, item-level comparison reports, and comparative rank list information. This paper presents an innovative model, grounded in institutional experience and review of the literature, to provide feedback to faculty evaluators, thereby improving the reliability of the evaluation process, and motivating the professional growth of faculty as educators. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,770,458
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,869
of 325,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them