Ferguson Kristi J, Kreiter Clarence D
Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA.
Med Educ. 2007 Sep;41(9):906-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02824.x. Epub 2007 Aug 13.
Attempts to validate peer evaluation and to incorporate it into the curriculum have met with mixed results. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of peer evaluations in a Year 1 case-based learning course.
As part of the formal grading process for the course, all faculty facilitators (n = 69 over 3 years) completed a 12-item evaluation form for each student at the conclusion of each case. As part of a course assignment, students (n = 415 over 3 years) completed brief evaluations of their peers based on 2 criteria: the overall quality of written reports, and participation in group discussion. In addition, students provided anonymous feedback in the written end-of-course evaluation about the peer evaluation process, and faculty were asked to comment during the wrap-up luncheon for small-group facilitators.
Response rates for the 3 Year 1 medical student classes ranged from 95% to 99%. The average number of peer evaluations completed for each student was 4.6. The G coefficients for the rater-nested-within-person generalisability study were 0.52 for written reports and 0.60 for group participation; both were based on an average of 4-5 ratings. Correlation coefficients between peer and faculty evaluations in each of the 3 consecutive years of the course ranged from 0.46 to 0.63; all were statistically significant at P < 0.001. A correction for attenuation suggests that the true score correlation between faculty and peer measures is near 1.0.
This study provides strong evidence that facilitator and peer ratings measure similar constructs and shows that, even among Year 1 medical students, peer evaluation can be conducted in a valid manner.
验证同行评价并将其纳入课程的尝试结果不一。本研究的目的是评估在一年级基于案例的学习课程中同行评价的使用情况。
作为该课程正式评分过程的一部分，所有教员（3年内共69人）在每个案例结束时为每个学生填写一份12项的评价表。作为课程作业的一部分，学生（3年内共415人）基于两个标准对同伴进行简短评价：书面报告的整体质量和小组讨论中的参与度。此外，学生在课程结束时的书面评价中提供了关于同行评价过程的匿名反馈，教员被要求在小组教员总结午餐会上发表评论。
一年级医学生三个班级的回复率在95%至99%之间。每个学生完成的同行评价平均数量为4.6次。评分者嵌套于个体的概化研究中，书面报告的G系数为0.52，小组参与度的G系数为0.60；两者均基于平均4至5次评分。该课程连续三年中每年的同行评价与教员评价之间的相关系数在0.46至0.63之间；所有在P < 0.001时均具有统计学意义。衰减校正表明教员评价与同行评价之间的真实分数相关性接近1.0。
本研究提供了有力证据，表明教员评价和同行评价衡量的是相似的结构，并表明即使在一年级医学生中，同行评价也可以以有效的方式进行。
