A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations

Adam D. Shellito; Christian de Virgilio; Amy H. Kaji; Darrel W. Harrington; Jamie M. Robertson; Nicole K. Zern; David A. Spain; Karen J. Dickinson; Douglas S. Smink; Nancy L. Cho; Timothy Donahue; Cary B. Aarons; Jukes P. Namm; Farin Amersi; Tiffany N. Tanner; Edgar Shields Frey; Benjamin T. Jarman; Brian R. Smith; Jeffrey M. Gauvin; Karen J. Brasel; Edgardo S. Salcedo; Kenric Murayama; V. Prasad Poola; Ebondo Mpinga; Kenji Inaba; Kristine E. Calhoun

doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.030

A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations

Adam D. Shellito, Christian de Virgilio, Amy H. Kaji, Darrel W. Harrington, Jamie M. Robertson, Nicole K. Zern, David A. Spain, Karen J. Dickinson, Douglas S. Smink, Nancy L. Cho, Timothy Donahue, Cary B. Aarons, Jukes P. Namm, Farin Amersi, Tiffany N. Tanner, Edgar Shields Frey, Benjamin T. Jarman, Brian R. Smith, Jeffrey M. Gauvin, Karen J. BraselEdgardo S. Salcedo, Kenric Murayama, V. Prasad Poola, Ebondo Mpinga, Kenji Inaba, Kristine E. Calhoun

Surgery

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Background: Resident evaluation of faculty teaching is an important metric in general surgery training, however considerable variability in faculty teaching evaluation (FE) instruments exists. Study design: Twenty-two general surgery programs provided their FE and program demographics. Three clinical education experts performed blinded assessment of FEs, assessing adherence 2018 ACGME common program standards and if the FE was meaningful. Results: Number of questions per FE ranged from 1 to 29. The expert assessments demonstrated that no evaluation addressed all 5 ACGME standards. There were significant differences in the FEs effectiveness of assessing the 5 ACGME standards (p < 0.001), with teaching abilities and professionalism rated the highest and scholarly activities the lowest. Conclusion: There was wide variation between programs regarding FEs development and adhered to ACGME standards. Faculty evaluation tools consistently built around all suggested ACGME standards may allow for a more accurate and useful assessment of faculty teaching abilities to target professional development.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	334-340
Number of pages	7
Journal	American journal of surgery
Volume	222
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.030
State	Published - Aug 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Surgery

Access to Document

10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.030

Cite this

Shellito, A. D., de Virgilio, C., Kaji, A. H., Harrington, D. W., Robertson, J. M., Zern, N. K., Spain, D. A., Dickinson, K. J., Smink, D. S., Cho, N. L., Donahue, T., Aarons, C. B., Namm, J. P., Amersi, F., Tanner, T. N., Frey, E. S., Jarman, B. T., Smith, B. R., Gauvin, J. M., ... Calhoun, K. E. (2021). A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations. American journal of surgery, 222(2), 334-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.030

Shellito, AD, de Virgilio, C, Kaji, AH, Harrington, DW, Robertson, JM, Zern, NK, Spain, DA, Dickinson, KJ, Smink, DS, Cho, NL, Donahue, T, Aarons, CB, Namm, JP, Amersi, F, Tanner, TN, Frey, ES, Jarman, BT, Smith, BR, Gauvin, JM, Brasel, KJ, Salcedo, ES, Murayama, K, Poola, VP, Mpinga, E, Inaba, K & Calhoun, KE 2021, 'A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations', American journal of surgery, vol. 222, no. 2, pp. 334-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.030

@article{4a552ee2475047e4995857fda36bbb89,

title = "A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations",

abstract = "Background: Resident evaluation of faculty teaching is an important metric in general surgery training, however considerable variability in faculty teaching evaluation (FE) instruments exists. Study design: Twenty-two general surgery programs provided their FE and program demographics. Three clinical education experts performed blinded assessment of FEs, assessing adherence 2018 ACGME common program standards and if the FE was meaningful. Results: Number of questions per FE ranged from 1 to 29. The expert assessments demonstrated that no evaluation addressed all 5 ACGME standards. There were significant differences in the FEs effectiveness of assessing the 5 ACGME standards (p < 0.001), with teaching abilities and professionalism rated the highest and scholarly activities the lowest. Conclusion: There was wide variation between programs regarding FEs development and adhered to ACGME standards. Faculty evaluation tools consistently built around all suggested ACGME standards may allow for a more accurate and useful assessment of faculty teaching abilities to target professional development.",

author = "Shellito, {Adam D.} and {de Virgilio}, Christian and Kaji, {Amy H.} and Harrington, {Darrel W.} and Robertson, {Jamie M.} and Zern, {Nicole K.} and Spain, {David A.} and Dickinson, {Karen J.} and Smink, {Douglas S.} and Cho, {Nancy L.} and Timothy Donahue and Aarons, {Cary B.} and Namm, {Jukes P.} and Farin Amersi and Tanner, {Tiffany N.} and Frey, {Edgar Shields} and Jarman, {Benjamin T.} and Smith, {Brian R.} and Gauvin, {Jeffrey M.} and Brasel, {Karen J.} and Salcedo, {Edgardo S.} and Kenric Murayama and Poola, {V. Prasad} and Ebondo Mpinga and Kenji Inaba and Calhoun, {Kristine E.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2021",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.030",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "222",

pages = "334--340",

journal = "American journal of surgery",

issn = "0002-9610",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations

AU - Shellito, Adam D.

AU - de Virgilio, Christian

AU - Kaji, Amy H.

AU - Harrington, Darrel W.

AU - Robertson, Jamie M.

AU - Zern, Nicole K.

AU - Spain, David A.

AU - Dickinson, Karen J.

AU - Smink, Douglas S.

AU - Cho, Nancy L.

AU - Donahue, Timothy

AU - Aarons, Cary B.

AU - Namm, Jukes P.

AU - Amersi, Farin

AU - Tanner, Tiffany N.

AU - Frey, Edgar Shields

AU - Jarman, Benjamin T.

AU - Smith, Brian R.

AU - Gauvin, Jeffrey M.

AU - Brasel, Karen J.

AU - Salcedo, Edgardo S.

AU - Murayama, Kenric

AU - Poola, V. Prasad

AU - Mpinga, Ebondo

AU - Inaba, Kenji

AU - Calhoun, Kristine E.

PY - 2021/8

Y1 - 2021/8

N2 - Background: Resident evaluation of faculty teaching is an important metric in general surgery training, however considerable variability in faculty teaching evaluation (FE) instruments exists. Study design: Twenty-two general surgery programs provided their FE and program demographics. Three clinical education experts performed blinded assessment of FEs, assessing adherence 2018 ACGME common program standards and if the FE was meaningful. Results: Number of questions per FE ranged from 1 to 29. The expert assessments demonstrated that no evaluation addressed all 5 ACGME standards. There were significant differences in the FEs effectiveness of assessing the 5 ACGME standards (p < 0.001), with teaching abilities and professionalism rated the highest and scholarly activities the lowest. Conclusion: There was wide variation between programs regarding FEs development and adhered to ACGME standards. Faculty evaluation tools consistently built around all suggested ACGME standards may allow for a more accurate and useful assessment of faculty teaching abilities to target professional development.

AB - Background: Resident evaluation of faculty teaching is an important metric in general surgery training, however considerable variability in faculty teaching evaluation (FE) instruments exists. Study design: Twenty-two general surgery programs provided their FE and program demographics. Three clinical education experts performed blinded assessment of FEs, assessing adherence 2018 ACGME common program standards and if the FE was meaningful. Results: Number of questions per FE ranged from 1 to 29. The expert assessments demonstrated that no evaluation addressed all 5 ACGME standards. There were significant differences in the FEs effectiveness of assessing the 5 ACGME standards (p < 0.001), with teaching abilities and professionalism rated the highest and scholarly activities the lowest. Conclusion: There was wide variation between programs regarding FEs development and adhered to ACGME standards. Faculty evaluation tools consistently built around all suggested ACGME standards may allow for a more accurate and useful assessment of faculty teaching abilities to target professional development.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098619571&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85098619571&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.030

DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.030

M3 - Article

C2 - 33388134

AN - SCOPUS:85098619571

SN - 0002-9610

VL - 222

SP - 334

EP - 340

JO - American journal of surgery

JF - American journal of surgery

IS - 2

ER -

A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this