Evaluation, Grading, and Use of the RIME Vocabulary on Internal Medicine Clerkships: Results of a National Survey and Comparison to Other Clinical Clerkships

Abstract

Background: Evaluation methods within and across clerkships are rapidly evolving, including greater emphasis or frameworks for descriptive evaluation and direct observation of competence. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to describe current evaluation methods, use of the Reporter-Interpreter-Manager/Educator (RIME) framework, and grade assignment by internal medicine clerkship directors. Methods: In 2005, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine surveyed its 109 institutional members. Topics included evaluation methods and grade contribution, use of evaluation sessions and/or RIME, and grade assignment (criterion referenced or normative). Results: Response rate was 81% (88/109). The evaluation methods were as follows: teachers' evaluations, 93% (64% of grade); National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination, 81% (25% of grade); faculty written exam, 34% (14% of grade); objective structured clinical examinations, 32% (12% of grade); direct observation, 22% (7% of grade). RIME is used by 42% of respondents. Many clerkship directors (43%) meet with teachers to discuss student performance. Criterion-referenced grading is used by 59%, and normative grading is used by 27%. Unsatisfactory grades are given for examination failures (72%), unprofessional behavior (49%), poor clinical performance (42%), and failure to meet requirements (18%). Conclusions: Internal medicine clerkship directors emphasize description and observation of students. RIME and discussions with teachers are becoming commonplace.

The data used in this article are the property of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine and are used with permission. The views expressed in this article are the views of the authors and do not represent the official views of the Uniformed Services University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or other federal agencies.

Notes

^a n = 53.

^b n = 24.

^c Comparisons made using Mann–Whitney U test.