A feasibility study comparing checklists and global rating forms to assess resident performance in clinical skills.

This study evaluated the feasibility of two different scoring forms for assessing the clinical performance of residents in anaesthesiology. One of the forms had a checklist format including task-specific items and the other was a global rating form with general dimensions of competence including 'clinical skills', 'communication skills' and 'knowledge'. Thirty-two clinicians representing 25 (83%) of the 30 training hospitals in the country participated in the study. The clinicians were randomized into two groups, each of which used one of the scoring formats to assess a resident's performance in four simulated clinical scenarios on videotape. Clinicians' opinions about the appropriateness of the scoring forms were rated on a scale of 1-5. The checklist format was rated significantly higher compared with the global rating form (mean 4.6, 0.5 vs. mean 3.5, 1.4, p < 0.001). The inter-rater agreement regarding pass/fail decisions was poor irrespective of the scoring form used. This was explained by clinicians' leniency as assessors rather than by lack of vigilance in the observations or disagreements on standards for good performance.