Suppr超能文献

评估一种限制标准化考试对实习成绩影响的方法。

Assessing a method to limit influence of standardized tests on clerkship grades.

机构信息

Department of Family Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA. stephen

出版信息

Teach Learn Med. 2012;24(4):287-91. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2012.715256.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Grading committees give excessive weight to standardized-examination scores.

PURPOSE

Understanding that biases are often ingrained in grading processes, we sought to assess the influence of a structured grading policy in limiting this effect.

METHODS

All 7 clerkship grading committees derived students' clinical scores while blinded to examination scores. Scores were combined to yield a final rank order, which was used to derive grade cutoffs. Logit regression was performed to assess the contribution of clinical and examination scores to final grades. Results were compared to a similar analysis where committees were not blinded to examination scores.

RESULTS

In contrast to prior findings, grading committees consistently assigned greater weight to clinical-performance scores in assigning final grades when blinded to examination scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Grading committees may be unaware of the extent to which they discount clinical assessments when they are at odds with the results of standardized examinations. This can be addressed with a procedure that blinds grading committees to examination scores.

摘要

背景

评分委员会过分看重标准化考试成绩。

目的

了解到评分过程中常常存在偏见,我们试图评估结构化评分政策在限制这种影响方面的作用。

方法

所有 7 个实习评分委员会在不了解考试成绩的情况下得出学生的临床成绩。将分数合并以得出最终的排名顺序,然后根据该顺序确定成绩的划分标准。使用逻辑回归评估临床和考试成绩对最终成绩的贡献。将结果与评分委员会不了解考试成绩的类似分析进行比较。

结果

与之前的研究结果相反,当评分委员会对考试成绩不了解时,他们在给最终成绩评分时,始终更倾向于给临床表现评分。

结论

评分委员会可能没有意识到,当他们的临床评估结果与标准化考试结果不一致时,他们在多大程度上对临床评估进行了折扣。通过将评分委员会对考试成绩进行盲评的程序可以解决这个问题。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验