Better Decision-Making: Shared Mental Models and the Clinical Competency Committee

BACKGROUND

Shared mental models (SMMs) help groups make better decisions. Clinical competency committees (CCCs) can benefit from the development and use of SMMs in their decision-making as a way to optimize the quality and consistency of their decisions.

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed the use of SMMs for decision making in graduate medical education, particularly their use in CCCs.

METHODS

In May 2020, the authors conducted a narrative review of the literature related to SMMs. This review included the SMM related to teams, team functioning, CCCs, and graduate medical education.

RESULTS

The literature identified the general use of SMMs, SMMs in graduate medical education, and strategies for building SMMs into the work of the CCC. Through the use of clear communication and guidelines, and a shared understanding of goals and expectations, CCCs can make better decisions. SMMs can be applied to Milestones, resident performance, assessment, and feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

To ensure fair and robust decision-making, the CCC must develop and maintain SMMs through excellent communication and understanding of expectations among members.

Stages of Milestones Implementation: A Template Analysis of 16 Programs Across 4 Specialties

BACKGROUND

Since 2013, US residency programs have used the competency-based framework of the Milestones to report resident progress and to provide feedback to residents. The implementation of Milestones-based assessments, clinical competency committee (CCC) meetings, and processes for providing feedback varies among programs and warrants systematic examination across specialties.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine how varying assessment, CCC, and feedback implementation strategies result in different outcomes in resource expenditure and stakeholder engagement, and to explore the contextual forces that moderate these outcomes.

METHODS

From 2017 to 2018, interviews were conducted of program directors, CCC chairs, and residents in emergency medicine (EM), internal medicine (IM), pediatrics, and family medicine (FM), querying their experiences with Milestone processes in their respective programs. Interview transcripts were coded using template analysis, with the initial template derived from previous research. The research team conducted iterative consensus meetings to ensure that the evolving template accurately represented phenomena described by interviewees.

RESULTS

Forty-four individuals were interviewed across 16 programs (5 EM, 4 IM, 5 pediatrics, 3 FM). We identified 3 stages of Milestone-process implementation, including a resource-intensive early stage, an increasingly efficient transition stage, and a final stage for fine-tuning.

CONCLUSIONS

Residency program leaders can use these findings to place their programs along an implementation continuum and gain an understanding of the strategies that have enabled their peers to progress to improved efficiency and increased resident and faculty engagement.

The Optimal Timing of Step 1 in Medical Education Following the Transition to Pass/Fail: A Unique Perspective from Post-clerkship Step 1 Schools

The National Board of Medical Examiners' decision to change Step 1 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) from a three-digit score to Pass/Fail (P/F) represents a disruptive change for students, faculty, and leaders in the academic community. In the context of this change, some schools may re-consider the optimal timing of Step 1 as they strive to align their assessment practices with sound educational principles. Currently, over 20 schools administer USMLE Step 1 after the core clerkships. In this commentary, we review the educational rationale for a post-clerkship Step 1, highlighting how adult learning theories support this placement. We discuss some short-term challenges post-clerkship Step 1 schools may encounter due to the proposed timing of the change in scoring, which creates three unique scenarios for learners that can introduce inequity in the system and provoke anxiety. We review outcomes of potentially heightened importance when Step 1 is P/F, including lower clinical subject exam scores in some clerkships, lower failure rates on Step 1 and stable Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores with implications for the residency match. We outline the future potential for performance-based time-variable Step 1 study periods that are facilitated by post-clerkship placement of the exam. Finally, we discuss opportunities to achieve the goal of enhancing student well-being, which was a major rationale for eliminating the three-digit score.

Rethinking How to Introduce the Learning Sciences: a Near-Peer Approach

To address the problem of students cramming for examinations using short-term memorization, we developed an interactive session for first-year medical students in which a near-peer discussed evidence-based learning strategies and how to apply them to specific curricular activities to promote long-term retention and deep understanding. Immediate and delayed post-survey data suggested this new session promoted adoption of evidence-based learning strategies and was well-received by students.

"There Is a Lot of Change Afoot": A Qualitative Study of Faculty Adaptation to Elimination of Tiered Grades With Increased Emphasis on Feedback in Core Clerkships

PURPOSE

Medical schools responding to challenges with fairness, equity, learning environments, and student wellness have reconsidered clerkship grades. This study used the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to explore how faculty responded to a change in the approach to assessment from focus on grades toward focus on feedback.

METHOD

This qualitative study used an inductive approach to analyze data from semistructured interviews with teaching faculty and education leaders at University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine 6 months following the elimination of traditional tiered clerkship grades. Participants were recruited in 2019 using purposive sampling. Interview questions addressed participants' perceptions of the new approach to assessment and grading that emphasizes assessment for learning, including advantages and concerns. The authors analyzed data using thematic analysis informed by sensitizing concepts from CBAM.

RESULTS

Nineteen faculty participated (11 medicine, 8 surgery). Faculty expressed optimism about the impact of the change on their clinical educator roles and sought faculty development to enhance feedback and assessment skills. Perceived benefits to students addressed learning and wellness, with concern for students' motivation and professional development. Faculty shared uncertainty about their roles and larger systemic consequences involving the residency match and institutional reputation. Participants acknowledged that traditional grading is imperfect, yet felt a departure from this system represented significant culture change.

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty perceptions of the assessment and grade change in 2 large departments demonstrated tensions around grading. Their descriptions of change as an ongoing process aligned with CBAM and required them to consider new approaches and perspectives. While discourse about assessment and grading frequently focuses on learners, these findings support institutional consideration of the impact of changes in assessment on teaching faculty.

The COVID-19 Pandemic as an Imperative to Advance Medical Student Assessment: Three Areas for Change

Conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have disrupted clinical practice and all aspects of medical education. Yet the need to continue to train physicians to care for patients and communities is greater than ever. Medical educators are responding by adapting curricula in response to requirements for social distancing, changing availability of clinical learning opportunities, and limitations on testing center availability for examinations. These disruptions require a systems approach to ensure that learners achieve competence in preparation for advancement in training toward unsupervised practice. In this article, the authors assert that medical educators, obligated by current conditions to adapt educational experiences, should seize the opportunity presented by the pandemic to make needed changes in 3 areas aligned with competency-based medical education: focusing on outcomes, broadening the assessment toolbox, and improving the undergraduate medical education-to-graduate medical education (UME-to-GME) transition. Defined outcomes, as exemplified by entrustable professional activities, will enable curricular designers to shorten and adapt learning experiences by focusing on students' achievement of prespecified learning outcomes. Broadening the assessment toolbox entails capturing more and different assessment information about learners to provide a well-rounded view of their strengths and areas for growth in both traditional and novel settings, such as telehealth. Limitations on available data, such as licensing examination scores and clerkship grades, heighten the urgency to revise the system for the UME-to-GME transition by enhancing the quality and usability of information available to residency program directors. Educators should capitalize on the opportunity presented by altered conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic to make these needed changes to the educational system, to prepare physicians to provide health care and lead the health care system into the future.

Standardization in the MSPE: Key Tensions for Learners, Schools, and Residency Programs

The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE), which summarizes a medical student's academic and professional undergraduate medical education performance and provides salient information during the residency selection process, faces persistent criticisms regarding heterogeneity and obscurity. Specifically, MSPEs do not always provide the same type or amount of information about students, especially from diverse schools, and important information is not always easy to find or interpret. To address these concerns, a key guiding principle from the Recommendations for Revising the MSPE Task Force of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) was to achieve "a level of standardization and transparency that facilitates the residency selection process." Benefits of standardizing the MSPE format include clarification of performance benchmarks or metrics, consistency across schools to enhance readability, and improved quality. In medical education, standardization may be an important mechanism to ensure accountability of the system for all learners, including those with varied backgrounds and socioeconomic resources. In this article, members of the aforementioned AAMC MSPE task force explore 5 tensions inherent in the pursuit of standardizing the MSPE: (1) presenting each student's individual characteristics and strengths in a way that is relevant, while also working with a standard format and providing standard content; (2) showcasing school-specific curricular strengths while also demonstrating standard evidence of readiness for internship; (3) defining and achieving the right amount of standardization so that the MSPE provides useful information, adds value to the residency selection process, and is efficient to read and understand; (4) balancing reporting with advocacy; and (5) maintaining standardization over time, especially given the tendency for the MSPE format and content to drift. Ongoing efforts to promote collaboration and trust across the undergraduate to graduate medical education continuum offer promise to reconcile these tensions and promote successful educational outcomes.

A Narrative Study of Equity in Clinical Assessment Through the Antideficit Lens

PURPOSE

Efforts to address inequities in medical education are centered on a dialogue of deficits that highlight negative underrepresented in medicine (UIM) learner experiences and lower performance outcomes. An alternative narrative explores perspectives on achievement and equity in assessment. This study sought to understand UIM learner perceptions of successes and equitable assessment practices.

METHOD

Using narrative research, investigators selected a purposeful sample of self-identified UIM fourth-year medical students and senior-level residents and conducted semistructured interviews. Questions elicited personal stories of achievement during clinical training, clinical assessment practices that captured achievement, and equity in clinical assessment. Using re-storying and thematic analysis, investigators coded transcripts and synthesized data into themes and representative stories.

RESULTS

Twenty UIM learners (6 medical students and 14 residents) were interviewed. Learners often thought about equity during clinical training and provided personal definitions of equity in assessment. Learners shared stories that reflected their achievements in patient care, favorable assessment outcomes, and growth throughout clinical training. Sound assessments that captured achievements included frequent observations with real-time feedback on predefined expectations by supportive, longitudinal clinical supervisors. Finally, equitable assessment systems were characterized as sound assessment systems that also avoided comparison to peers, used narrative assessment, assessed patient care and growth, trained supervisors to avoid bias, and acknowledged learner identity.

CONCLUSIONS

UIM learners characterized equitable and sound assessment systems that captured achievements during clinical training. These findings guide future efforts to create an inclusive, fair, and equitable clinical assessment experience.

Medical Education's Wicked Problem: Achieving Equity in Assessment for Medical Learners

Despite a lack of intent to discriminate, physicians educated in U.S. medical schools and residency programs often take actions that systematically disadvantage minority patients. The approach to assessment of learner performance in medical education can similarly disadvantage minority learners. The adoption of holistic admissions strategies to increase the diversity of medical training programs has not been accompanied by increases in diversity in honor societies, selective residency programs, medical specialties, and medical school faculty. These observations prompt justified concerns about structural and interpersonal bias in assessment. This manuscript characterizes equity in assessment as a "wicked problem" with inherent conflicts, uncertainty, dynamic tensions, and susceptibility to contextual influences. The authors review the underlying individual and structural causes of inequity in assessment. Using an organizational model, they propose strategies to achieve equity in assessment and drive institutional and systemic improvement based on clearly articulated principles. This model addresses the culture, systems, and assessment tools necessary to achieve equitable results that reflect stated principles. Three components of equity in assessment that can be measured and evaluated to confirm success include intrinsic equity (selection and design of assessment tools), contextual equity (the learning environment in which assessment occurs), and instrumental equity (uses of assessment data for learner advancement and selection and program evaluation). A research agenda to address these challenges and controversies and demonstrate reduction in bias and discrimination in medical education is presented.

Predicting Performance on Clerkship Examinations and USMLE Step 1: What Is the Value of Open-Ended Question Examination?

PURPOSE

Despite advances in learning sciences that highlight the efficacy of elaborative interrogation, in which students explain and elaborate on concepts in their own words, assessment techniques in medical education have commonly employed multiple-choice questions (MCQs). Educators' reluctance to consider alternatives such as open-ended questions (OEQs) stems from practical advantages of MCQs and the lack of empirical data on the predictability of OEQs for performance on other high-stakes assessments. In this study, the authors compared the predictive value of preclerkship assessments using OEQs for the outcomes of clerkship examinations and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1.

METHOD

The authors compared outcomes of 2 assessment formats using multiyear performance data (2015 and 2016 cohorts) on preclerkship MCQ versus OEQ examinations for predicting students' subsequent performance on 6 clerkship examinations and USMLE Step 1. The authors conducted a regression analysis to compare the predictability of MCQs and OEQs by using clerkship exam scores and Step 1 scores as dependent variables and performance on MCQs and OEQs as predictors in the models.

RESULTS

Regression models with OEQs were consistently higher for predicting clerkship exam (NBME shelf-exam) scores, except for one clerkship, compared with models using MCQs. For Step 1, R-square using MCQs was higher with 59% of the variance explained compared with 46% with OEQs, but the OEQ cohort scored significantly higher on Step 1.

CONCLUSIONS

OEQ examinations predict performance on subsequent high-stakes MCQ examinations. Given the predictive value and closer alignment with scientific principles of effective learning, OEQ examinations are an examination format worthy of consideration in preclerkship medical education programs.

They Don't See a Lot of People My Color: A Mixed Methods Study of Racial/Ethnic Stereotype Threat Among Medical Students on Core Clerkships

PURPOSE

Stereotype threat is an important psychological phenomenon in which fear of fulfilling negative stereotypes about one's group impairs performance. The effects of stereotype threat in medical education are poorly characterized. This study examined the prevalence of racial/ethnic stereotype threat amongst fourth-year medical students and explored its impact on students' clinical experience.

METHOD

This was an explanatory sequential mixed methods study at 2 institutions in 2019. First, the authors administered the quantitative Stereotype Vulnerability Scale (SVS) to fourth-year medical students. The authors then conducted semistructured interviews among a purposive sample of students with high SVS scores, using a qualitative phenomenographic approach to analyze experiences of stereotype threat. The research team considered reflexivity through group discussion and journaling.

RESULTS

Overall, 52% (184/353) of students responded to the survey. Collectively, 28% of students had high vulnerability to stereotype threat: 82% of Black, 45% of Asian, 43% of Latinx, and 4% of White students. Eighteen students participated in interviews. Stereotype threat was a dynamic, 3-stage process triggered when students experienced the workplace through the colored lens of race/ethnicity by standing out, reliving past experiences, and witnessing microaggressions. Next, students engaged in internal dialogue to navigate racially charged events and workplace power dynamics. These efforts depleted cognitive resources and interfered with learning. Finally, students responded and coped to withstand threats. Immediate and deferred interventions from allies reduced stereotype threat.

CONCLUSIONS

Stereotype threat is common, particularly among non-White students, and interferes with learning. Increased minority representation and developing evidence-based strategies for allyship around microaggressions could mitigate effects of stereotype threat.

Which Internal Medicine Clerkship Characteristics Are Associated With Students' Performance on the NBME Medicine Subject Exam? A Multi-Institutional Analysis

PURPOSE

To identify which internal medicine clerkship characteristics may relate to NBME Medicine Subject Examination scores, given the growing trend toward earlier clerkship start dates.

METHOD

The authors used linear mixed effects models (univariable and multivariable) to determine associations between medicine exam performance and clerkship characteristics (longitudinal status, clerkship length, academic start month, ambulatory clinical experience, presence of a study day, involvement in a combined clerkship, preclinical curriculum type, medicine exam timing). Additional covariates included number of NBME clinical subject exams used, number of didactic hours, use of a criterion score for passing the medicine exam, whether medicine exam performance was used to designate clerkship honors, and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 performance. The sample included 24,542 examinees from 62 medical schools spanning 3 academic years (2011-2014).

RESULTS

The multivariable analysis found no significant association between clerkship length and medicine exam performance (all pairwise P > .05). However, a small number of examinees beginning their academic term in January scored marginally lower than those starting in July (P < .001). Conversely, examinees scored higher on the medicine exam later in the academic year (all pairwise P < .001). Examinees from schools that used a criterion score for passing the medicine exam also scored higher than those at schools that did not (P < .05). Step 1 performance remained positively associated with medicine exam performance even after controlling for all other variables in the model (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample, the authors found no association between many clerkship variables and medicine exam performance. Instead, Step 1 performance was the most powerful predictor of medicine exam performance. These findings suggest that medicine exam performance reflects the overall medical knowledge students accrue during their education rather than any specific internal medicine clerkship characteristics.

Sparking Change: How a Shift to Step 1 Pass/Fail Scoring Could Promote the Educational and Catalytic Effects of Assessment in Medical Education

This Invited Commentary explores the implications of the upcoming shift to pass/fail scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 that was announced in February 2020. Using the frameworks of validity and growth/mastery mindset, the authors describe how this change in Step 1 score reporting presents an opportunity to advance the meaningful assessment of medical students and improve the transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME). The authors explore the potential risks and consequences associated with a narrow implementation of pass/fail scoring. Alternatively, with a shift in scoring, educators can leverage consequential validity, particularly the educational and catalytic effects of assessment. The authors emphasize the importance of assessment that motivates learners to prepare in a fashion that benefits their learning and that provides results and feedback that motivate all stakeholders to create, enhance, and support education. The authors suggest that this use of assessment will require a culture change from fixed mindset to growth mindset among both students and educators, a shift from static to dynamic testing, and a transition to assessment that focuses on a learner's trajectory. The authors conclude by emphasizing the importance of work-based assessment and the need for improved transparency across the UME-GME continuum.

Twelve tips for assessing medical knowledge with open-ended questions: Designing constructed response examinations in medical education

Medical knowledge examinations employing open-ended (constructed response) items can be useful to assess medical students' factual and conceptual understanding. Modern day curricula that emphasize active learning in small groups and other interactive formats lend themselves to an assessment format that prompts students to share conceptual understanding, explain, and elaborate. The open-ended question examination format can provide faculty with insights into learners' abilities to apply information to clinical or scientific problems, and reveal learners' misunderstandings about essential content. To implement formative or summative assessments with open-ended questions in a rigorous manner, educators must design systems for exam creation and scoring. This includes systems for constructing exam blueprints, items and scoring rubrics, and procedures for scoring and standard setting. Information gained through review of students' responses can guide future educational sessions and curricular changes in a cycle of continuous improvement.

Fostering a Feedback Mindset: A Qualitative Exploration of Medical Students' Feedback Experiences With Longitudinal Coaches

PURPOSE

Feedback is important for medical students' development. Recent conceptualizations of feedback as a dialogue between feedback provider and recipient point to longitudinal relationships as a facilitator of effective feedback discussions. This study illuminates how medical students experience feedback within a longitudinal relationship with a physician coach.

METHOD

In this qualitative study, second-year medical students from the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine participated in semistructured interviews that explored their experiences discussing feedback within longitudinal, nonevaluative coaching relationships. Interviews occurred between May and October 2018. Interview questions addressed students' experiences receiving feedback from their coach, how and when they used this feedback, and how their relationship with their coach influenced engagement in feedback discussions. Interviews were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory.

RESULTS

Seventeen students participated. The authors identified 3 major themes. First, students' development of a feedback mindset: Over time, students came to view feedback as an invaluable component of their training. Second, setting the stage for feedback: Establishing feedback routines and a low-stakes environment for developing clinical skills were important facilitators of effective feedback discussions. Third, interpreting and acting upon feedback: Students described identifying, receiving, and implementing tailored and individualized feedback in an iterative fashion. As students gained comfort and trust in their coaches' feedback, they reported increasingly engaging in feedback conversations for learning.

CONCLUSIONS

Through recurring feedback opportunities and iterative feedback discussions with coaches, students came to view feedback as essential for growth and learning. Longitudinal coaching relationships can positively influence how students conceptualize and engage in feedback discussions.

Toward Creating Equity in Awards Received During Medical School: Strategic Changes at One Institution

Membership in the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society (AΩA) is a widely recognized achievement valued by residency selection committees and employers. Yet research has shown selection favors students from racial/ethnic groups not underrepresented in medicine (not-UIM). The authors describe efforts to create equity in AΩA selection at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, through implementation of a holistic selection process, starting with the class of 2017, and present outcomes.Informed by the definition of holistic review, medical school leaders applied strategic changes grounded in evidence on inclusion, mitigating bias, and increasing opportunity throughout the AΩA selection process. These addressed increasing selection committee diversity, revising selection criteria and training committee members to review applications using a new instrument, broadening student eligibility and inviting applications, reviewing blinded applications, and making final selection decisions based on review and discussion of a rank-ordered list of students that equally weighted academic achievement and professional contributions.The authors compared AΩA eligibility and selection outcomes for 3 classes (2014-2016) during clerkship metric-driven selection, which prioritized academic achievement, and 3 classes (2017-2019) during holistic selection. During clerkship metric-driven selection, not-UIM students were 4 times more likely than UIM students to be eligible for AΩA (P = .001) and 3 times more likely to be selected (P = .001). During holistic selection, not-UIM students were 2 times more likely than UIM students to be eligible for AΩA (P = .001); not-UIM and UIM students were similarly likely to be selected (odds ratio = .7, P = .12)This new holistic selection process created equity in representation of UIM students among students selected for AΩA. Centered on equity pedagogy, which advocates dismantling structures that create inequity, this holistic selection process has implications for creating equity in awards selection during medical education.

"A Friendly Place to Grow as an Educator": A Qualitative Study of Community and Relationships Among Medical Student Coaches

PURPOSE

The rise of coaching programs in medical education sparks questions about ways to support physician coaches in learning new educational practices specific to coaching. How coaches learn from one another is of particular interest considering the potential value of social learning. Using communities of practice as a conceptual framework, the authors examine the sense of community and relationships among coaches in a new medical student coaching program, the value of this community, and the facilitators and barriers influencing community development.

METHOD

In this qualitative study, investigators conducted 34 interviews with physician coaches at 1 institution over 2 years (2017-2018) and observed 36 coach meetings. Investigators analyzed interview transcripts using thematic analysis and used observation field notes for context and refinement of themes.

RESULTS

Coaches described a sense of community based on regular interactions; shared commitment to medical education; and new roles with similar experiences, joys, and challenges. They valued the sense of camaraderie and support, learning from one another, and opportunities for professional growth that strengthened their identities as educators and enhanced job satisfaction. Facilitators of community included regular meetings, leadership and administrative support, and informal opportunities to interact outside of meetings. Barriers included time constraints and geographic challenges for coaches at off-site locations.

CONCLUSIONS

The sense of community among coaches was a valued and beneficial part of their coaching experience. Coaches' interactions and relationships promoted skill acquisition, knowledge transfer, professional development, and career satisfaction. Thus, incorporating support for social learning in coaching programs promotes coach faculty development.

Teaching Systems Improvement to Early Medical Students: Strategies and Lessons Learned

PURPOSE

Despite increasing emphasis in medical school education on quality and systems improvement, many medical schools lack sufficient faculty with expertise to teach systems improvement. Using the pedagogical content knowledge framework, this study explores how faculty engage students in systems improvement work and faculty perceptions of the outcomes for the health system and students.

METHOD

In May-June 2017, the authors interviewed 12 of 13 invited faculty with experience in teaching and engaging first-year medical students in systems improvement work, the course of students' systems improvement work over time, the impact of students' projects on health systems, and students' learning and attitudes about systems improvement. The authors conducted qualitative analysis iteratively with data collection to sufficiency.

RESULTS

Six emergent themes characterized faculty's approach to guiding students in systems improvement work: faculty-student relationship, faculty role, student role, faculty-student shared responsibility for projects, faculty and student content knowledge, and project outcomes. The faculty-student relationship was foundational for successful systems improvement work. Faculty roles included project selection, project management, and health systems interactions. Students engaged in systems improvement as their faculty leveraged their knowledge and skills and created meaningful student roles. Faculty and students shared responsibility and colearned systems improvement content knowledge. Faculty defined successful outcomes as students' learning about the systems improvement process and interprofessional collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the critical importance of pedagogical content knowledge to engage early learners in systems improvement work, understand their learning interests and needs, and manage their projects longitudinally.

In Pursuit of Honors: A Multi-Institutional Study of Students' Perceptions of Clerkship Evaluation and Grading

PURPOSE

To examine medical students' perceptions of the fairness and accuracy of core clerkship assessment, the clerkship learning environment, and contributors to students' achievement.

METHOD

Fourth-year medical students at 6 institutions completed a survey in 2018 assessing perceptions of the fairness and accuracy of clerkship evaluation and grading, the learning environment including clerkship goal structures (mastery- or performance-oriented), racial/ethnic stereotype threat, and student performance (honors earned). Factor analysis of 5-point Likert items (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) provided scale scores of perceptions. Using multivariable regression, investigators examined predictors of honors earned. Qualitative content analysis of responses to an open-ended question yielded students' recommendations to improve clerkship grading.

RESULTS

Overall response rate was 71.1% (666/937). Students believed that being liked and particular supervisors most influenced final grades. Only 44.4% agreed that grading was fair. Students felt the clerkship learning environment promoted both mastery and performance avoidance behaviors (88.0% and 85.6%, respectively). Students from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine were more likely to experience stereotype threat vulnerability (55.7% vs 10.9%, P < .0005). Honors earned was positively associated with perceived accuracy of grading and interest in competitive specialties while negatively associated with stereotype threat. Students recommended strategies to improve clerkship grading: eliminating honors, training evaluators, and rewarding improvement on clerkships.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants had concerns around the fairness and accuracy of clerkship evaluation and grading and potential bias. Students expressed a need to redefine the culture of assessment on core clerkships to create more favorable learning environments for all students.