Written case reports as assessment of the elective student clerkship: consistency of central grading and comparison with ratings of clinical performance

Abstract

The assessment of the elective clerkship at the University of Groningen consists of a written case report, graded by one of four independent reviewers, and a rating of clinical performance by the students’ supervisors. This study analyses the grades of 710 case reports and 189 ratings. The grades were found to be normally distributed, similar for the reviewers and consistent over the years, but inter- or intra-observer variation was not studied. The ratings of clinical performance were skewed towards ‘excellent’. There was a low correlation between the two assessments (Spearman's r = 0.25; p = 0.001). This may be attributed among other things to the large number of supervisors and the face-to-face assessment of clinical performance versus the distant assessment of a written document. A more relevant explanation, however, is that the case reports measure primarily cognitive aspects, as compared with overall clinical performance.