Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Relationship Between Peer Assessment During Medical School, Dean’s Letter Rankings, and Ratings by Internship Directors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Background

It is not known to what extent the dean’s letter (medical student performance evaluation [MSPE]) reflects peer-assessed work habits (WH) skills and/or interpersonal attributes (IA) of students.

Objective

To compare peer ratings of WH and IA of second- and third-year medical students with later MSPE rankings and ratings by internship program directors.

Design and Participants

Participants were 281 medical students from the classes of 2004, 2005, and 2006 at a private medical school in the northeastern United States, who had participated in peer assessment exercises in the second and third years of medical school. For students from the class of 2004, we also compared peer assessment data against later evaluations obtained from internship program directors.

Results

Peer-assessed WH were predictive of later MSPE groups in both the second (F = 44.90, P < .001) and third years (F = 29.54, P < .001) of medical school. Interpersonal attributes were not related to MSPE rankings in either year. MSPE rankings for a majority of students were predictable from peer-assessed WH scores. Internship directors’ ratings were significantly related to second- and third-year peer-assessed WH scores (r = .32 [P = .15] and r = .43 [P = .004]), respectively, but not to peer-assessed IA.

Conclusions

Peer assessment of WH, as early as the second year of medical school, can predict later MSPE rankings and internship performance. Although peer-assessed IA can be measured reliably, they are unrelated to either outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Association of Medical Colleges. A Guide to the Preparation of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation. Available at http://www.aamc.org/members/gsa/mspeguide.pdf. Accessed 6 Jun 2006.

  2. Hunt DD, MacLaren C, Scott C, Marshall SG, Braddock CH, Sarfaty S. Follow-up study of the characteristics of dean’s letters. Acad Med. 2001;76(7):727–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Leiden LI, Miller GD. National survey of writers of dean’s letters for residency applications. J Med Educ. 1986;61(12):943–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hunt DD, MacLaren CF, Scott CS, Chu J, Leiden LI. Characteristics of dean’s letters in 1981 and 1992. Acad Med. 1993;68(12):905–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ozuah PO. Variability in deans’ letters. JAMA. 2002;288(9):1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Toewe CH 2nd, Golay DR. Use of class ranking in deans’ letters. Acad Med. 1989;64(11):690–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yager J, Strauss GD, Tardiff K. The quality of deans’ letters from medical schools. J Med Educ. 1984;59(6):471–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Edmond M, Roberson M, Hasan N. The dishonest dean’s letter: an analysis of 532 dean’s letters from 99 U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 1999;74(9):1033–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Provan JL, Cuttress L. Preferences of program directors for evaluation of candidates for postgraduate training. CMAJ. 1995;153(7):919–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lurie SJ, Lambert DR, Grady-Weliky TA. Relationship between dean’s letter groupings and later evaluations by residency program directors. Manuscript under review.

  11. Norcini JJ. Peer assessment of competence. Med Educ. 2003;37:539–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lurie SJ, Nofziger A, Meldrum S, Mooney C, Epstein RE. Temporal and group-related trends in peer assessment amongst medical students. Med Educ. In press.

  13. Dannefer EF, Henson LC, Bierer SB, et al. Peer assessment of professional competence. Med Educ. 2005;39:713–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Papadakis M, Teherani A, Banach MA, et al. Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(25):2673–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Loeser H, Papadakis M. Promoting and assessing professionalism in the first two years of medical school. Acad Med. 2000;75(5):509–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Association of American Medical Colleges. Contemporary Issues in Medicine: Communication in Medicine. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 1999. Report 3 of the Medical School Objectives Project. Available at http://www.aamc.org/meded/msop/msop3.pdf. Accessed 6 Jun 2006

  17. DuBois JM, Burkemper J. Ethics education in U.S. medical schools: a study of syllabi. Acad Med. 2002;77(5):432–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Veloski JJ, Fields SK, Boex JR, Blank LL. Measuring professionalism: a review of studies with instruments reported in the literature between 1982 and 2002. Acad Med. 2005;80(4):366–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kern DE, Branch WT Jr, Jackson JL, et al. General Internal Medicine Generalist Educational Leadership Group. Teaching the psychosocial aspects of care in the clinical setting: practical recommendations. Acad Med. 2005;80(1):8–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Arnold L, Shue CK, Kritt B, Ginsburg S, Stern DT. Medical students’ views on peer assessment of professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(9):819–824.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dudek NL, Marks MB, Regehr G. Failure to fail: the perspectives of clinical supervisors. Acad Med. 2005;80(10 suppl):S84–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Educational Evaluation and Research, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 601, Rochester, NY, 14624, USA

    Stephen J. Lurie MD, PhD, David R. Lambert MD, Anne C. Nofziger MD, Ronald M. Epstein MD & Tana A. Grady-Weliky MD

Authors
  1. Stephen J. Lurie MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David R. Lambert MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne C. Nofziger MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronald M. Epstein MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tana A. Grady-Weliky MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen J. Lurie MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lurie, S.J., Lambert, D.R., Nofziger, A.C. et al. Relationship Between Peer Assessment During Medical School, Dean’s Letter Rankings, and Ratings by Internship Directors. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 13–16 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0117-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0117-4

Key words

Search

Navigation