Comparison of peer assessment and faculty assessment in an interprofessional simulation-based team training program.

Challenges related to limited clinical sites and shortage of clinical instructors may reduce the quality of clinical experiences, leading to increased demand for the establishment of simulation-based training programs in the curricula of educational institutions. However, simulation-based training programs in health education place great demands on faculty resources. It is interesting, therefore, to investigate peers contributions in formal assessment, and how this compares to faculty assessment. This paper report the results from the comparison of direct observation by peer observers who had received short rater training, and post-hoc video-based assessment by trained facilitators. An observation form with six learning outcomes was used to rate team performance. Altogether 262 postgraduate nursing students, bachelor of nursing students and medical students participated, organized into 44 interprofessional teams. A total of 84 peers and two facilitators rated team performance. The sum score of all six learning outcomes showed that facilitators were more lenient than peer observers (p = .014). The inter-rater reliability varied considerably when comparing scores from peer observers from the three different professions with those of the facilitators. The results indicate that peer assessment may support, but not replace, faculty assessment.