ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2020
Gender Effects in Assessment of Clinical Teaching: Does Concordance Matter?
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating factors affecting the evaluation of teachers' medical universities from the students' point of view: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- The Context of "Confidence": Analyzing the Term Confidence in Resident Evaluations.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGender bias is thought to exist in the assessment of clinical teachers, yet its extent in different specialties is not well-documented nor has it been studied at the individual-dyadic level.
objectiveThe authors sought to determine whether gender bias exists in residents' assessments of faculty teaching in 3 clinical departments, and if present, whether this is influenced by gender concordance or discordance between the faculty and resident.
methodsResidents' ratings of faculty in internal medicine (800 faculty, 5753 ratings), surgery (377, 2249), and family medicine (672, 3438) at the University of Toronto from 2016-2017 were analyzed using the overall global rating on a 5-point scale. A mixed-effects linear regression analysis accounted for nesting of ratings within each faculty member.
resultsOverall scores of teaching effectiveness showed a strong skew to favorable ratings for all faculty and a ceiling effect. However, gender effects differed across departments. In internal medicine (38.5% female faculty), no significant gender effects were detected. In surgery (16.2% female) and family medicine (53.0% female), male faculty received significantly higher scores than female faculty. In surgery this was driven by male residents giving male faculty higher ratings (4.46 vs 4.26,
conclusionsAlthough effects were very small and inconsistent, with gender concordance mattering only for one department, it suggests that gender is a meaningful source of variance in teaching assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.