Shea Judy A, O'Grady Elizabeth, Morrison Gail, Wagner Barbara R, Morris Jon B
Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 1223 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021, USA.
Acad Med. 2008 Mar;83(3):284-91. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181637bdd.
To collect information regarding preparation, content, and format of Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPEs) and evaluate a sample of 2005 MSPEs to assess compliance with the 2002 Association of American Medical Colleges-issued MSPE guidelines.
Cross-sectional survey with all 126 U.S. allopathic medical schools. Associate deans of students affairs were sent an eight-item questionnaire in June 2006 and asked to submit a sample of redacted MSPEs for 2005 graduates, choosing one from each tertile of the class. Survey data are summarized. MSPEs were abstracted, and results are presented descriptively.
The survey response rate was 84%. Most associate deans (71%) reported having primary responsibility for composing MSPEs; 78% adhered to the format and content guidelines three fourths of the time. The abstraction of 293 MSPEs (78%) showed that more than 80% adhered to format recommendations. However, only 70% to 80% stated grades clearly, avoided the word recommendation, and stated whether the student had completed remediation. Fewer than 70% indicated whether the student had had any adverse actions or provided adequate comparative data. Strikingly, only 17% provide comparative data in the summary paragraph. Overall, 75% of the MSPEs were judged to be "adequate."
MSPEs are somewhat variable in terms of which specific items are included. There has been steady quality improvement since prior surveys, primarily in formatting and labeling. However, a sizable minority of writers are still using the MSPE as a recommendation, and too few are providing helpful comparative data.
收集有关医学生表现评估（MSPEs）的准备、内容和格式的信息，并对2005年的MSPEs样本进行评估，以评估其是否符合2002年美国医学院协会发布的MSPE指南。
对美国所有126所opathic医学院进行横断面调查。2006年6月向学生事务副院长发送了一份包含8个项目的问卷，并要求提交2005年毕业生的编辑后的MSPEs样本，从班级的每个三分位数中选择一份。对调查数据进行了总结。对MSPEs进行了摘要，并以描述性方式呈现结果。
调查回复率为84%。大多数副院长（71%）报告称主要负责撰写MSPEs；78%的人在四分之三的时间内遵守了格式和内容指南。对293份MSPEs（78%）的摘要显示，超过80%的人遵守了格式建议。然而，只有70%至80%的人明确说明了成绩，避免使用“推荐”一词，并说明了学生是否完成了补救措施。不到70%的人指出学生是否有任何不良行为或提供了足够的比较数据。令人惊讶的是，只有17%的人在总结段落中提供了比较数据。总体而言，75%的MSPEs被判定为“足够”。
MSPEs在具体包含哪些项目方面存在一定差异。自之前的调查以来，质量一直在稳步提高，主要体现在格式和标注方面。然而，仍有相当一部分撰写者将MSPE用作推荐，而且提供有用比较数据的人太少。
