Assessing postgraduate trainees in Canada: Are we achieving diversity in methods?

Abstract

Background: Resident evaluation is a complex and challenging task, and little is known about what assessment methods, predominate within or across specialties.

Aims: To determine the methods program directors in Canada use to assess residents and their perceptions of how evaluation could be improved.

Methods: We conducted a web-based survey of program directors from The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC)-accredited training programs, to examine the use of the In-Training Evaluation Report (ITER), the use of non-ITER tools and program directors’ perceived needs for improvement in evaluation methods.

Results: One hundred forty-nine of the eligible 280 program directors participated in the survey. ITERs were used by all but one program. Of the non-ITER tools, multiple choice questions (71.8%) and oral examinations (85.9%) were most utilized, whereas essays (11.4%) and simulations (28.2%) were least used across all specialties. Surgical specialties had significantly higher multiple choice questions and logbook utilization, whereas medical specialties were significantly more likely to include Objective Stuctured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). Program directors expressed a strong need for national collaboration between programs within a specialty to improve the resident evaluation processes.

Conclusions: Program directors use a variety of methods to assess trainees. They continue to rely heavily on the ITER, but are using other tools.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sophia Chou

SOPHIA CHOU, MD, MSc, is the principal investigator responsible for study design, data analysis and drafting of this article.

Jocelyn Lockyer

JOCELYN LOCKYER, PhD, has made significant contribution to study design, data analysis and article write-up.

Gary Cole

GARY COLE, PhD, has mode significant contribution to the data acquisition and article revision.

Kevin McLaughlin

KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN, MD, PhD, has made substantial contribution to the study design and article revision.