Using a peer evaluation system to assess faculty performance and competence.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Identification of reliable methods to evaluate the newly mandated American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS)/Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies of the board-certified physician is in its early stages. In this study, we evaluated a comprehensive faculty peer evaluation system designed to assess the six competencies as well as faculty performance in their primary departmental roles and teaching. METHODS: Using a one-page form containing 19 items, all faculty members evaluated all other faculty within a single department. Annual individual faculty reviews included discussion of these aggregated evaluations. RESULTS: The reliabilities for the ACGME competency subscales ranged from .61 to .79. While overall scores were relatively high, there was variability across faculty. Factor analysis demonstrated that evaluation items load onto three scales. The first relates to clinical practice and teaching, the second to departmental citizenship, and the third to research. An item related to systems-based practice loaded on none of the factors. Research faculty outscored other faculty on the items reflecting research skills. Faculty who had primary administrative responsibility scored higher than other faculty on measures related to role within the department. No differences in subgroup scores for clinical skills were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Using a method in which all faculty evaluate each other can result in objective, reliable measures of faculty performance.