TY - JOUR
AU1 - Meyer, Eric
AU2 - Cozza, Kelly
AU3 - Konara, Riley
AU4 - Hamaoka, Derrick
AU5 - West, James
AB - Objective This retrospective study compared faculty-selected evaluation scores with those mathematically calculated from behaviorally anchored assessments. Methods Data from 1036 psychiatry clerkship clinical evaluations (2012–2015) was reviewed. These clinical evaluations required faculty to assess clinical performance using 14 behaviorally anchored questions followed by a faculty-selected overall evaluation. An explicit rubric was included in the overall evaluation to assist the faculty in interpreting their 14 assessment responses. Using the same rubric, mathematically calculated evaluations of the same assessment responses were generated and compared to the faculty-selected evaluations. Results Comparison of faculty-selected to mathematically calculated evaluations revealed that while the two methods were reliably correlated (Cohen’s kappa = 0.314, Pearson’scoefficient = 0.658, p < 0.001), there was a notable difference in the results (t =24.5, p < 0.0001). The average faculty-selected evaluation was 1.58 (SD = 0.61) with a mode of “1” or “outstanding,” while the mathematically calculated evaluation had an average of 2.10 (SD = 0.90) with a mode of “3” or “satisfactory.” 51.0% of the faculty-selected evaluations matched the mathematically calculated results: 46.1% were higher and 2.9% were lower. Conclusions Clerkship clinical evaluation forms that require faculty to make an overall evaluation generate results that are significantly higher than 
TI - Inflated Clinical Evaluations: a Comparison of Faculty-Selected and Mathematically Calculated Overall Evaluations Based on Behaviorally Anchored Assessment Data
JF - Academic Psychiatry
DO - 10.1007/s40596-018-0957-8
DA - 2018-08-08
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/inflated-clinical-evaluations-a-comparison-of-faculty-selected-and-VjSZ9SKW4o
SP - 1
EP - 6
VL - OnlineFirst
IS - 
DP - DeepDyve
ER -