Using the 360° multisource feedback model to evaluate teaching and professionalism

References

• Allerup P, Aspegren K, Ejlersen E, Jørgesen G, Malchow-Møller A, Møller MK, Pedersen KK, Rasmussen OB, Rohold A, Sørensen B. Use of 360-degree assessment of residents in internal medicine in a Danish setting: A feasibility study. Med Teach 2007; 29: 166–170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appling SE, Naumann PL, Berk RA. Using a faculty evaluation triad to achieve evidence-based teaching. Nurs Health Care Perspect 2001; 22: 247–251
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Archer JC, Norcini J, Davies H. Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training. Brit Med J 2005; 330: 1251–1253
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arreola RA. Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system, 3rd. Anker, Bolton, MA 2007
   Google Scholar
• Berk RA. Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. Int J Teach Learn Higher Educ 2005; 17(1)48–62, (http:/www.isetl.org/ijtlthe)
   Google Scholar
• Berk RA. Thirteen strategies to measure college teaching: A consumer's guide to rating scale construction, assessment, and decision making for faculty, administrators, and clinicians. Stylus, Sterling, VA 2006
   Google Scholar
• Berk RA. Derogatory and cynical humor in clinical teaching: A case for professionalism. Med Educ 2009; 43: 7–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berk RA, Naumann PL, Appling SE. Beyond student ratings: Peer observation of classroom and clinical teaching. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh 2004; 1(1)1–26
   Google Scholar
• Boyd NM. 360-Degree performance appraisal systems. Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy, J Rabin. Taylor & Francis, OxfordEngland 2005
   Google Scholar
• Bracken DW, Timmreck CW, Church AH, editors. The handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehensive resource for designing and implementing MSF processes. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 2001
   Google Scholar
• Braskamp LA, Ory JC. Assessing faculty work. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 1994
   Google Scholar
• Brutus S, Fleenor JW, London M. Does 360-degree feedback work in different industries? A between-industry comparison of the reliability and validity of multi-source performance ratings. J Manage Dev 1998; 17(3)177–190
   Google Scholar
• Centra JA. Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 1993
   Google Scholar
• Conway JM, Huffcutt AI. Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Hum Perform 1997; 10: 331–360
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis J. Comparison of faculty, peer, self, and nurse assessment of obstetrics and gynecology residents. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 647–651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diefendorff JM, Silverman SB, Greguras GJ. Measurement equivalence and multisource ratings for non-managerial positions: Recommendations for research and practice. J Bus Psychol 2005; 19(3)399–425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards MR, Ewen AJ. 360° Feedback: The powerful new model for employee assessment and performance improvement. American Management Association (AMACOM), New York 1996
   Google Scholar
• Evans R, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians. Brit Med J 2004; 328: 1240–1245
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forni PM. Choosing civility: The 25 rules of considerate conduct. St. Martin's Press, New York 2002
   Google Scholar
• Ghorpade J. Managing five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback. Acad Manage Exec 2000; 14(1)140–150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillespie TL. Internationalizing 360-degree feedback: Are subordinate ratings comparable?. J Bus Psychol 2005; 19(3)361–382
   Google Scholar
• Gray A, Lewis A, Fletcher C, Burke E, Mackay J, Kubelius E, Lindley P. 360 degree feedback: Best practices guidelines. 2003, (http://www.psychtesting.org.uk/)
   Google Scholar
• Griffin E, Sanders G, Craven D, King J. A computerized 360° feedback tool for personal and organizational development in general practice. Health Informatics J 2000; 6: 71–80
   Google Scholar
• Hall W, Violato C, Lewkonia R, Lockyer JM, Fidler H, Toews J, Jennett P, Donoff M, Moores D. Assessment of physician performance in Alberta: The physician achievement review. Can Med Assoc J 1999; 161: 52–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson D, Cujec B. Comparison of self, nurse and physician assessment of residents rotating through an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: 1811–1816
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones JE. 360-Degree feedback: Strategies, tactics, and techniques for developing leaders. Human Resource Development Press, Amherst, MA 1996
   Google Scholar
• Joshi R, Ling FW, Jaeger J. Assessment of a 360-degree instrument to evaluate residents’ competency in interpersonal and communication skills. Acad Med 2004; 79: 458–463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapper C, Cranton P, editors. Fresh approaches to the evaluation of teaching (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No 88). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 2001
   Google Scholar
• Lepsinger R, Lucia AD. The art and science of 360 degree feedback. Pfeiffer, San Francisco 1997
   Google Scholar
• Lipner RS, Blank LL, Leas BF, Fortna GS. The value of patient and peer ratings in recertification. Acad Med 2002; 77(10S)64S–66S
   Google Scholar
• Lockyer JM. Multi source feedback in the assessment of physician competencies. J Cont Educ Health Prof 2003; 23(1)4–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lockyer JM, Clyman S. Multi source feedback. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence, Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE. Mosby/Elsevier, Philadelphia 2008; 75–85
   Google Scholar
• Lockyer JM, Violato C. An examination of the appropriateness of using a common peer assessment instrument to assess physician skills across specialties. Acad Med 2004; 79: 5S–8S
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lockyer JM, Violato C. A multi source feedback program for anesthesiologists. Can J Anesth 2006; 53: 33–39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockyer JM, Violato C, Fidler H. The assessment of emergency physicians by a regulatory authority. Acad Emerg Med 2006; 13: 1296–1303
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lockyer JM, Violato C, Fidler H. What multisource feedback factors influence physician self-assessments? A five-year longitudinal study. Acad Med 2007; 82: 577–580
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy AM, Garavan TN. 360 degree feedback processes: Performance improvement and employee career development. J Eur Ind Training 2001; 25(1)3–32
   Google Scholar
• Murphy DJ, Bruce DA, Mercer SW, Eva KW. The reliability of workplace-based assessment in postgraduate medical education and training: A national evaluation in general practice in the United Kingdom. Adv Health Sci Educ 2008, 10:1007/s10459-008-9104-8
   Google Scholar
• Norcini J, Birch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach 2007; 29: 855–871
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey P, Carline JD, Inui TS, Larson EB, LoGerfo JP, Wenrich MD. Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. J Am Med Assoc 1993; 269: 1655–1660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risucci DA, Tortolani AJ, Ward RJ. Ratings of surgical residents by self, supervisors and peers. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1989; 169(5)519–526
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sargeant JM, Mann KV, Ferrier S. Understanding family physicians’ reactions to MSF performance assessment: Perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Med Educ 2005; 39: 497–504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargeant JM, Mann KV, Sinclair D, van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J. Understanding the influence of emotions and reflections upon multi-source feedback acceptance and use. Adv Health Sci Educ 2006, 10:1007/s10459-006-9039-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seifert CF, Yukl G, McDonald RA. Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence behavior of managers toward subordinates. J Appl Psychol 2003; 88: 561–569
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seldin P. Current practices – good and bad – nationally. Changing practices in evaluating teaching: A practical guide to improved faculty performance and promotion/tenure decisions, P Seldin. Anker, Bolton, MA 1999; 1–24
   Google Scholar
• Seldin P, editor. Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing teaching, research, and service. Anker, Bolton, MA 2006
   Google Scholar
• Smith AFR, Fortunato VJ. Factors influencing employee intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings. J Bus Psychol 2008; 22(3)191–207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smither JW, London M, Reilly RR. Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychol 2005; 58: 33–66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tornow WW, London M. Maximizing the value of 360-degree feedback: A process for successful individual and organizational development. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 1998
   Google Scholar
• Twale DJ, DeLuca BM. Faculty incivility: The rise of the academic bully culture and what to do about it. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 2008
   Google Scholar
• Tyler KM. Peer-level multiple source feedback for fitness to practice. Med Educ 2006; 40: 459–489
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Education. Assessing teaching performance. A Newsletter for Academic Administrators 2(3):2, winter. The Department Chair. 1991
   Google Scholar
• van Velsor E, Leslie JB, Fleenor JW. Choosing 360: A guide to evaluating multi-rater feedback instruments for management development. Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC 1997
   Google Scholar
• Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB. Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback, and physicians’ clinical performance 1: BEME Guide No. 7. Med Teach 2006; 28: 117–128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinson MN. The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback: Making it work. Train Dev 1996; 50(4)11–12
   Google Scholar
• Violato C, Lockyer JM, Fidler H. Multi source feedback: A method of assessing surgical practice. Brit Med J 2003; 326: 546–548
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Violato C, Marini A, Toews J, Lockyer JM, Fidler H. Feasibility and psychometric properties of using peers, consulting physicians, co-workers, and patients to assess physicians. Acad Med 1997; 72: 82S–84S
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldman D, Atwater LE. Power of 360 degree feedback: How to leverage performance evaluations for top productivity. Gulf Professional Publishing, Burlington, MA 1998
   Google Scholar
• Wenrich MD, Carline JD, Giles LM, Ramsey PG. Ratings of the performances of practicing internists by hospital-based registered nurses. Acad Med 1993; 68: 680–687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood J, Collins J, Burnside ES, Albanese MA, Propeck PA, Kelcz F, Spilde JM, Schmaltz LM. Patient, faculty, and self-assessment of radiology resident performance: A 360-degree method of measuring professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills. Acad Radiol 2004; 11: 931–939
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar