A Weighted Evaluation Study of Clinical Teacher Performance at Five Hospitals in the UK

Figures & data

Table 1 Descriptive Analysis of Student Ratings on General Teaching Skills (Questionnaire Part 1) in the Overall Sample (n = 133). Items Were Rated on 5-Point Scales with 5 Being the Most Favourable Option

Questionnaire – Part 1 (18 Items Targeting Teaching Skills)	Mean ± SD
The degree of difficulty of the sessions was well adapted to the students’ level of knowledge.	4.26 ± 0.79
The volume of information covered in the sessions was appropriate.	4.23 ± 0.83
The sessions were clearly structured.	4.12 ± 0.90
The content covered in the sessions was consistent with the learning objectives presented at the start of the attachment.	4.15 ± 0.84
The sessions provided a good combination of knowledge conveyed by the teaching fellow and active student participation.	4.29 ± 0.87
I had sufficient opportunities to examine patients during the sessions.	3.65 ± 1.09
The teaching fellow treated the students with respect.	4.67 ± 0.73
The teaching fellow sufficiently responded to the students’ questions and participation.	4.56 ± 0.75
The teaching fellow gave the students constructive feedback.	4.39 ± 0.94
The teaching fellow stated the principle learning objectives at the beginning of the attachment.	3.83 ± 1.05
The teaching fellow gave me personal feedback on my physical examination skills.	4.31 ± 0.84
The teaching fellow delivered the sessions in a way that furthered my personal interest for the subject matter.	4.08 ± 0.93
The teaching fellow gave me sufficient opportunities to apply my theoretical knowledge clinically.	4.06 ± 0.93
The teaching fellow explained how to interpret the physical examination findings.	4.18 ± 0.93
The teaching fellow practised clinical examination methods with the students	4.19 ± 0.98
The teaching fellow illustrated the integration of clinical information and reasoning using patient examples.	4.02 ± 0.97
The teaching fellow expressed himself/herself in an understandable way.	4.59 ± 0.74
The teaching fellow arrived on time.	4.41 ± 0.94

Table 2 Descriptive Analysis of Student Self-Assessments and CSA Gain (Questionnaire Part 2) in the Overall Sample (n = 133). Items Were Rated on 6-Point Scales with 6 Being the Most Favourable Option. CSA Gain Was Calculated as Described Previously¹⁴

Self-Assessment Statement	Then Test	Post Test	Effect Size (Cohen’s d)	CSA Gain
I can take and record a patient’s complete medical history.	4.10 ± 1.16	5.06 ± 0.77*	0.98	44.4 ± 41.8%
I can perform and record a comprehensive cardiovascular examination.	4.21 ± 1.21	5.14 ± 0.78*	0.92	43.0 ± 43.9%
I can perform and record a comprehensive respiratory examination.	4.16 ± 1.23	5.19 ± 0.71*	1.03	45.3 ± 42.7%
I can perform and record a comprehensive abdominal examination.	4.23 ± 1.26	5.22 ± 0.72*	0.97	43.5 ± 42.2%
I can perform and record a comprehensive nervous system examination.	3.65 ± 1.30	4.65 ± 0.88*	0.90	34.4 ± 36.2%
I can correctly interpret physical examination findings.	3.72 ± 1.21	4.74 ± 0.85*	0.98	39.1 ± 38.3%

Notes: *p<0.0001 (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test).

Figure 1 Teacher rankings according to various weighting algorithms. Green circles, mean of teaching skills and CSA Gain z scores; blue end of horizontal bars, teaching skills z score only; yellow end of horizontal bars, CSA Gain z score only; blue triangles, teaching skills: CSA Gain = 3:1; yellow boxes, teaching skills: CSA Gain = 1:3.

Raupach T, Münscher C, Beissbarth T, Burckhardt G, Pukrop T. Towards outcome-based programme evaluation: using student comparative self-assessments to determine teaching effectiveness. Med Teach. 2011;33(8):e446–e453. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2011.586751

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar