Iyer Alexander A, Hayes Cameron, Chang Bernard S, Farrell Susan E, Fladger Anne, Hauer Karen E, Schwartzstein Richard M
Acad Med. 2025 Aug 1;100(8):975-985. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000006085. Epub 2025 May 12.
Medical school grading has implications for student well-being, motivation, equity, and residency selection. However, despite more than 50 years of debate, there remains no consensus on whether grading should be tiered or pass/fail, particularly in core clerkships. This scoping review examines conceptual arguments, empirical data, and knowledge gaps regarding tiered versus pass/fail grading in medical school.
OVID MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and ERIC were searched on November 15, 2023, for articles published from 2000 to 2023 focused on (1) conceptual arguments regarding tiered versus pass/fail grading in U.S. medical schools and/or (2) empirical data relevant to this debate. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility. The authors performed meta-synthesis to group arguments into domains and cross-reference them with relevant data, appraising empirical studies using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).
Forty articles met inclusion criteria, including 22 empirical studies of variable quality (MERSQI scores, 8.5-13.5 of 18). Conceptual arguments and empirical data spanned 10 domains. Better-supported arguments included the association of pass/fail preclerkship grading with improved short-term well-being and preserved academic performance, the low reliability of individual tiered grades, and racial and ethnic disparities in clerkship grading. Areas of uncertainty included the effects of pass/fail clerkship grading on well-being, motivation, learning, and achievement; potential stress displacement with pass/fail grading; validity of tiered clerkship grades; residency application concerns; and subinternship grading considerations.
Significant controversy about grading exists across 10 domains. Cross-cutting challenges include the diverse purposes of grading leading to conflicting opinions and data interpretations, limited study quality, and overreliance on opinion over data or theory. Recommendations include caution when interpreting small numbers of tiered grades, transparency and research regarding potential clerkship grading disparities, and consideration of all relevant dimensions in system-level assessment approaches. The authors hope these steps encourage assessment that benefits learners and patients.
医学院校的评分对学生的幸福感、学习动力、公平性以及住院医师选拔都有影响。然而,尽管经过了50多年的讨论,但对于评分应该采用分级制还是通过/不及格制,尤其是在核心临床实习中,仍未达成共识。本综述研究了关于医学院校分级制与通过/不及格制评分的概念性论证、实证数据以及知识空白。
于2023年11月15日在OVID MEDLINE、Embase、科学引文索引和教育资源信息中心数据库中检索2000年至2023年发表的文章,这些文章聚焦于:(1)关于美国医学院校分级制与通过/不及格制评分的概念性论证;和/或(2)与该辩论相关的实证数据。两名评审员独立评估文章的入选资格。作者进行了元综合分析,将论证归纳为不同领域,并与相关数据进行交叉参考,使用医学教育研究质量工具(MERSQI)对实证研究进行评估。
40篇文章符合纳入标准,其中包括22项质量参差不齐的实证研究(MERSQI评分,满分为18分,得分在8.5 - 13.5之间)。概念性论证和实证数据涵盖10个领域。得到较多支持的论证包括:临床实习前通过/不及格制评分与短期幸福感提升及学业成绩保持之间的关联、个别分级成绩的低可靠性以及临床实习评分中的种族和民族差异。存在不确定性的领域包括:临床实习通过/不及格制评分对幸福感、学习动力、学习和成绩的影响;通过/不及格制评分可能导致的压力转移;临床实习分级成绩的有效性;住院医师申请方面的问题;以及实习前考核评分的考量因素。
在10个领域中,关于评分存在重大争议。贯穿各领域的挑战包括:评分目的多样导致观点和数据解读相互冲突、研究质量有限以及过度依赖观点而非数据或理论。建议包括:在解读少量分级成绩时要谨慎、对临床实习评分潜在差异进行透明化处理和开展研究,以及在系统层面的评估方法中考虑所有相关维度。作者希望这些措施能促进有利于学习者和患者的评估。