PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7382872

Student evaluation: its worth for course tutors.

Abstract

As part of their evaluation of the 9-week 'Medicine in the Community' course, final-year medical students completed a terminal evaluation questionnaire. Items and subject groupings were scored using a scale of 1-5 for 'value', 'interest', and 'presentation', and mean evaluations were calculated for each group of students. The results, summarized in tabular form, were posted to the seventy-three course tutors together with the mean evaluations of the course as a whole. It was hoped that this feedback on the course would help tutors to improve the standard of their contributions. After 2 years of this evaluation, a questionnaire was sent to the course tutors to examine whether student opinion is useful to them in the planning of teaching. Findings indicate that student opinion is actively sought and the results are useful, but only if tutors can identify their individual contributions from the tabulated summary.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Philipp. 1980. Student evaluation: its worth for course tutors.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1980.tb02253.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗