Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
What do quantitative ratings and qualitative comments tell us about general surgery residents’ progress toward independent practice? Evidence from a 5-year longitudinal cohort
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
What do quantitative ratings and qualitative comments tell us about general surgery residents’ progress toward independent practice? Evidence from a 5-year longitudinal cohort
Do you wish to request the book?
What do quantitative ratings and qualitative comments tell us about general surgery residents’ progress toward independent practice? Evidence from a 5-year longitudinal cohort
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
What do quantitative ratings and qualitative comments tell us about general surgery residents’ progress toward independent practice? Evidence from a 5-year longitudinal cohort
2019
Overview
This study examines the alignment of quantitative and qualitative assessment data in end-of-rotation evaluations using longitudinal cohorts of residents progressing throughout the five-year general surgery residency.
Rotation evaluation data were extracted for 171 residents who trained between July 2011 and July 2016. Data included 6069 rotation evaluations forms completed by 38 faculty members and 164 peer-residents. Qualitative comments mapped to general surgery milestones were coded for positive/negative feedback and relevance.
Quantitative evaluation scores were significantly correlated with positive/negative feedback, r = 0.52 and relevance, r = −0.20, p < .001. Themes included feedback on leadership, teaching contribution, medical knowledge, work ethic, patient-care, and ability to work in a team-based setting. Faculty comments focused on technical and clinical abilities; comments from peers focused on professionalism and interpersonal relationships.
We found differences in themes emphasized as residents progressed. These findings underscore improving our understanding of how faculty synthesize assessment data.
•Quantitative and qualitative comments showed alignment.•Themes changed significantly by training year, with greater variability in the quality of comments by faculty.•Faculty comments focused on patient care and medical knowledge; peer-resident comments focused on communication and professionalism.•Faculty and resident comments included information on personal and professional growth.
