View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Grades That Clinical Teachers Give Students Modifies the Grades They Receive

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Grades That Clinical Teachers Give Students Modifies the Grades They Receive
Language: English
Authors: Paget, Michael, Brar, Gurbir, Veale, Pamela, Busche, Kevin, Coderre, Sylvain, Woloschuk, Wayne, McLaughlin, Kevin (ORCID 0000-0002-3092-5325)
Source: Advances in Health Sciences Education. May 2018 23(2):241-247.
Availability: Springer. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: service-ny@springer.com; Web site: http://www.springerlink.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Correlation, Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance, Regression (Statistics), Rating Scales, Teacher Effectiveness, Teacher Evaluation, Grades (Scholastic), Bias, Test Validity
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-017-9783-0
ISSN: 1382-4996
Abstract: Prior studies have shown a correlation between the grades students receive and how they rate their teacher in the classroom. In this study, the authors probe this association on clinical rotations and explore potential mechanisms. All In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITERs) for students on mandatory clerkship rotations from April 1, 2013 to January 31, 2015 were matched with the corresponding student's rating of their teacher (SRT). The date and time that ITERs and SRTs were submitted was used to divide SRTs into those submitted before versus after the corresponding ITER was submitted. Multilevel, mixed effects linear regression was used to examine the association between SRT, ITER rating, and whether the ITER was submitted before or after SRT. Of 2373 paired evaluations, 1098 (46.3%) SRT were submitted before the teacher had submitted the ITER. There was a significant interaction between explanatory variables: when ITER ratings had not yet been submitted, the regression coefficient for this association was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [0.17, 0.33], p < 0.001), whereas the regression coefficient was significantly higher when ITER ratings were submitted prior to SRT (0.40 [0.31, 0.49], p < 0.001). Finding an association between SRT and ITER when students do not know their ITER ratings suggests that SRTs can capture attributes of effective teaching, but the effect modification when students have access to their ITER rating supports grade satisfaction bias. Further studies are needed to explain the mechanism of grade satisfaction and to identify other biases that may impact the validity of SRT.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 21
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1174818
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFkWB81zEbuyH68geU6kKa2AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIZf7mD-zduF17kjOwIBEICBmsni2kipF9ZGqYoU6lK3fs3wkd_eM_CSyx21cA4_ZRSzFOGwmzN9o12sJg9oLS81IeJPfL7G7jb-7c1xPuJCaE3e52NqLgS-gErUuudhIDUNlkeQ5rnnObk1io4HXpEtn9kMCqp1PHGFMeHOnlSlvlDhSrQoAP7AsH0IPiAfXdi0G9IzMnnc6G1YCfyVDARIFx4DDHenG7Gs-II=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: &lt;anid&gt;AN0128864809;oak01may.18;2018Apr05.12:15;v2.2.500&lt;/anid&gt; &lt;title id=&quot;AN0128864809-1&quot;&gt;The grades that clinical teachers give students modifies the grades they receive&#160;&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;Prior studies have shown a correlation between the grades students receive and how they rate their teacher in the classroom. In this study, the authors probe this association on clinical rotations and explore potential mechanisms. All In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITERs) for students on mandatory clerkship rotations from April 1, 2013 to January 31, 2015 were matched with the corresponding student’s rating of their teacher (SRT). The date and time that ITERs and SRTs were submitted was used to divide SRTs into those submitted before versus after the corresponding ITER was submitted. Multilevel, mixed effects linear regression was used to examine the association between SRT, ITER rating, and whether the ITER was submitted before or after SRT. Of 2373 paired evaluations, 1098 (46.3%) SRT were submitted before the teacher had submitted the ITER. There was a significant interaction between explanatory variables: when ITER ratings had not yet been submitted, the regression coefficient for this association was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [0.17, 0.33], &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;p&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&#160;&amp;lt;&#160;0.001), whereas the regression coefficient was significantly higher when ITER ratings were submitted prior to SRT (0.40 [0.31, 0.49], &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;p&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&#160;&amp;lt;&#160;0.001). Finding an association between SRT and ITER when students do not know their ITER ratings suggests that SRTs can capture attributes of effective teaching, but the effect modification when students have access to their ITER rating supports grade satisfaction bias. Further studies are needed to explain the mechanism of grade satisfaction and to identify other biases that may impact the validity of SRT.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Student’s rating of their teacher; In-training evaluation report; Grade satisfaction&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-2&quot;&gt;Introduction&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;During clerkship rotations, teachers rate the performance of their students and students rate the performance of their teachers. The teacher’s rating on the in-training evaluation report (ITER) is used to guide important decisions, such as whether or not a student is promoted, and for this reason clinical teachers are typically unaware of how a student rated their teaching performance when they submit ITER ratings. Students’ ratings of teachers (SRT) are also used to provide feedback to teachers and to inform decisions, such as the allocation of teaching awards and academic promotion of teachers, but in contrast to teachers completing ITER ratings, students are frequently aware of how their teacher rated their performance when they are rating their teacher. So, does knowledge of their rating influence how students rate their clinical teachers? This is an important consideration because any variable other than teaching performance that influences SRT reduces the validity of this evaluation tool and may bias decisions that are based upon these evaluations.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;There is an extensive body of literature dating back more than 60&#160;years suggesting that, in the classroom setting, there is typically a positive correlation between the grades that students receive (or expect to receive) and how they rate their instruction and their teacher (Anikeeff [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Feldman [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib6&quot; id=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;6&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Pratt and Pratt [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Snyder and Clair [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Powell [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Boring et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). But these data are largely observational—allowing us to infer association rather than causation—and there are competing hypotheses on the nature and direction of this association (Anikeeff [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Howard and Maxwell [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;] , [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Greenwald and Gillmore [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). The teaching effectiveness model proposes that better teaching result in improved learning and that higher SRT reflect students’ appreciation for the effort and skill of their teacher (Howard and Maxwell [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Greenwald and Gillmore [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). In practice, however, it may be difficult to separate the attributes of teachers from those of the learners (student characteristic model) since effective teachers can motivate learners and motivated learners can inspire improved performance of teachers (Greenwald and Gillmore [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;] )—but the assumption for both models is that attributes of teachers and/or learners cause the performance of students and SRT. By contrast, the grading satisfaction model proposes that the grades that students receive cause the rating of their teacher (Howard and Maxwell [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). There is debate as to whether the actual grade is the true explanatory variable versus expected grade, discrepancy between actual and expected grades, or discordance between actual and usual grades for a student—but irrespective of these model variations, the implication here is that the direction of association is student grades driving SRT (Howard and Maxwell [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Greenwald and Gillmore [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Boring et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;] ).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The relevance of findings from the classroom setting to clinical learning experiences is unclear. There are obvious differences between the classroom and clinical setting—including the paramount need for teachers and students to collectively deliver clinical care to patients—and there are data to suggest that the attributes that make a teacher effective in the classroom setting may differ from those that make her or him effective in the clinical setting (Rannelli et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Haws et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). Since most of the literature on the association between teachers’ rating of students and SRT is based upon classroom teaching, our first objective was to study whether this association is also present for evaluations of performance in the clinical teaching environment. If these variables are associated, our second objective was to try and explain the mechanism of this association.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;At our centre, both teachers and students use an on-line evaluation system to rate each other. SRTs are anonymized, collated, and distributed annually (after completion of the academic year)—thus making it unlikely that a teacher could identify their rating from any individual student and be influenced by this rating when completing an ITER. But, while teachers are blinded to their SRT while rating a student, students can submit their SRT before or after receiving their ITER from the same teacher. Historically, approximately 40-50% of students submit their SRT prior to receiving their ITER, which provides us with an opportunity to observe the association between knowledge of ITER ratings and SRT. Finding that the association between ITER ratings and SRT was unaffected by students having their ITER ratings would support the teaching effectiveness/student characteristic model. Alternatively, the grade satisfaction model would be supported by demonstrating that the association was present only when students had received their ITER ratings before submitting SRT. Finally, an interaction model would be supported if we found that ITER ratings and SRT are associated whether or not students have received their ITER ratings—but receiving ITER ratings modifies the association between ITER ratings and SRT.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-3&quot;&gt;Method&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-4&quot;&gt;Participants&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;We received ethics approval for this study from the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary. Our participants were final year medical students and clinical teachers at the Cumming School of Medicine. We have a 3-year undergraduate program, of which the final year is the clinical clerkship. We have two versions of our clerkship: a rotation-based clerkship, which includes mandatory rotations in Anesthesia, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, and Surgery; and a longitudinal integrated clerkship, in which students spend nine months in a primary care setting in addition to hospital-based rotations in Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, and Surgery (McLaughlin et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). In both versions of clerkship students also have ten weeks of clinical electives.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-5&quot;&gt;Materials&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;We used two sources of data in our study. The first was electronic in-training evaluation reports (ITERs) submitted by clinical teachers once students had completed a mandatory rotation or a component of a mandatory rotation. Some rotations, e.g., Family Medicine, had a single ITER, whereas other rotations, e.g., Internal Medicine, had a separate ITER for each subspecialty component. The ITERs for each of the mandatory rotations shared the same essential items that rated students on each of the CanMEDS Roles, and each had the same 4-point global rating scale (GRS) for the overall rating of student performance in addition to a section for the teacher to enter comments (Frank [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). On the GRS, anchors 1-4 represent performance that was considered unsatisfactory, performance deficiency, good, and outstanding (top 10% of the class), respectively. The second source of data was SRT that students completed for their clinical teacher on each component of a mandatory rotation. The same SRT format was used for all mandatory rotations and, in addition to a section for students to enter comments on their teacher, students rated their teachers on a 5-point GRS for rating overall teacher performance where anchors 1-5 represent performance that was considered unsatisfactory, borderline, good, above average, and outstanding, respectively.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;ITERs and SRT are completed and stored on an online evaluation system (https://calgary.one45.com/). When an ITER is completed, students can view this immediately, irrespective of whether they have completed their SRT for this teacher. By contrast, teacher evaluations are collated, anonymized, and distributed to teachers every twelve months (after completion of the clerkship year)—so that it is not possible to teachers to view their rating from any student before completing the ITER on this student.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-6&quot;&gt;Procedure&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;From our online evaluation system, we extracted all ITERs for students on mandatory rotations and matched these with the corresponding SRT completed by the same student for the same teacher during the period from April 1, 2013 to January 31, 2015. We also noted the date and time that ITERs and SRTs were submitted, which allowed us to divide SRTs into those submitted before versus after the corresponding ITER was submitted.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-7&quot;&gt;Statistical analyses&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;We used an independent sample t test to compare SRT completed before or after submission of the on-line ITER and Cohen’s d to estimate effect size. We used multilevel, mixed effects linear regression to study the association between our dependent variable (SRT) and ITER rating by the same teacher for the same student while adjusting for different clerkship rotations (by creating dummy variables to represent clerkship rotations in Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, and Surgery). This type of analysis allows us to adjust for clustering, which is required since there is a wide variation between teachers in the frequency with which they attend on clinical service—and, therefore, receive SRT and complete ITERs. In our regression model our fixed effect explanatory variables were: ITER rating, whether the ITER was submitted before students submitted the SRT, and clerkship rotation, and the random effect variables were: teacher, student, and the covariance between teacher and student. We also considered an interaction between our explanatory variables and performed backward elimination in our regression model, beginning with the interaction term. We used STATA&lt;sups&gt;&#174;&lt;/sups&gt; Version 11.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas) for our statistical analyses.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-8&quot;&gt;Results&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;During our study 312 students provided ratings for 546 teachers. The mean number of ratings (standard deviation) provided by each student was 5.8 (4.1) and the mean number of ratings for each teacher was 4.4 (4.1) with a range from 1 to 30. There were 2373 paired evaluations where a clinical teacher submitted an ITER for a student on a mandatory clerkship rotation and the same student submitted an SRT for this teacher. Of these, 1098 (46.3%) were submitted before the teacher had submitted the on-line ITER and 1275 were submitted after the teacher had submitted the ITER.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;We found no difference in ITER ratings of students who submitted their SRT before versus after their teacher had submitted the ITER, but teacher ratings were significantly lower for teachers who submitted ITER ratings before students completed their SRT. These data are shown in Table&#160;1.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;ITER ratings and SRT when ITER submitted before versus after SRT&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table frame=&quot;hsides&quot; rules=&quot;groups&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;Outcome variable&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;ITER submitted after SRT (n&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;1098)&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;ITER submitted before SRT (n&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;1275)&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;p value&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;In-training evaluation report (ITER) of students&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;char&quot; char=&quot;(&quot;&amp;gt;3.41 (0.50)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;char&quot; char=&quot;(&quot;&amp;gt;3.42 (0.51)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;char&quot; char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.6&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;Students&amp;amp;#8217; rating of their teacher (SRT)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;char&quot; char=&quot;(&quot;&amp;gt;4.62 (0.62)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;char&quot; char=&quot;(&quot;&amp;gt;4.48 (0.78)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;char&quot; char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#60;0.001&amp;amp;#42;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;*&#160;Effect size (Cohen’s d) for this difference was 0.2&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;By univariate analysis there was a significant association between ITER ratings and SRT (regression coefficient&#160;=&#160;0.33, 95% confidence interval [0.26, 0.39], p&#160;&amp;lt;&#160;0.001). When we added clerkship rotation and the variable “ITER completed before SRT” to our regression model we found no association between clerkship rotation and SRT, but there was a significant interaction between ITER completed before SRT and the association between ITER ratings and SRT (p&#160;&amp;lt;&#160;0.001). When ITER ratings had not yet been submitted, the regression coefficient for this association was 0.25 [0.17, 0.33] (p&#160;&amp;lt;&#160;0.001), whereas the regression coefficient was significantly higher when ITER ratings were submitted prior to SRT (0.40 [0.31, 0.49], p&#160;&amp;lt;&#160;0.001). These data are shown in Fig.&#160;1.The association between in-training evaluation report (ITER, x axis) and student’s rating of their teacher (SRT, y axis) when ITER ratings have not been received (left) or have been received (right) by students prior to completing SRT&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-9&quot;&gt;Discussion&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;As with studies in the classroom setting, we found a positive association between teachers’ ratings of students’ performance on clinical rotations and SRT. We found that the association was present irrespective of whether or not teachers had submitted ITER ratings for their students—but the magnitude of change in SRT per unit change in ITER rating was greater if teachers had submitted ITER ratings before students completed the SRT. In terms of the models considered in the introduction, our findings support the interaction model, and this interaction suggests that ITER ratings modifies the effect of teaching effectiveness on SRT.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;There are several possible mechanisms by which ITER ratings might influence SRT. Prior studies have suggested that teachers are more effective when they are compassionate and supportive towards learners, so students may infer these attributes (or their lack) from how their teacher judged their performance and then incorporate this into the SRT (Isaacson et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib14&quot; id=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;14&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; McKeachie et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Sutkin et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). Alternatively, ITER ratings may affect SRT subconsciously. For example, by giving a higher-than-expected ITER grade, a teacher may invoke in the student a positive emotional response (or “ingratiation”), which then inflates their SRT, whereas a lower-than-expected ITER grade would have the opposite effect, leading to lower SRT (Berkowitz and Troccoli [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;] ; Erber [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). Or SRTs may be adjusted to avoid the psychological discomfort of cognitive dissonance that arises when someone that we hold in high esteem rates us poorly, or vice versa (Festinger [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). In this case, matching SRT and ITER ratings could serve as a “dissonance-reducing strategy” (Elster [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;] ).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;There are several limitations of our study. As with most studies dealing with variables influencing SRT, this was an observational study, which is more susceptible to biases (e.g., allocation bias) than a randomized intervention study. We used time of ITER submission (before vs. after SRT submission) as a marker of whether or not students had been exposed to ITER ratings prior to submitting SRT. This variable may not accurately capture exposure to ITER ratings if a teacher informs the student of their ITER rating but then delayed submitting the ITER or, alternatively, if the ITER rating is submitted but the student does not view this prior to submitting the SRT. Both of these situations, however, would attenuate the impact of ITER ratings on SRT and increase the risk of a falsely negative effect of ITER ratings (type 2 error), which was clearly not the case in our study. While we have suggested possible mechanisms of how ITER ratings might influence SRT, we did not directly explore these. Ideally, future studies should include surveys and/or interviews of student raters that would allow qualitative data analysis and identification of the mechanism(s) involved. Future studies should also consider attributes of teachers and students that might influence SRT, including those that have been associated with SRT in other settings, such as teacher gender (Boring et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref29&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;] ). Finally, as with all studies that look at a one group of learners in one learning setting in single centre, our findings may not generalize to other learners in a different context in another centre.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-10&quot;&gt;Implications for medical education&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;In our study, we found that in the clinical setting, SRTs are associated with ITER ratings. Finding this association when students do not know their ITER ratings suggests that, rather than SRTs simply reflecting how a teacher rates a student, SRTs can capture attributes of effective teaching, such as the teacher’s ability to motivate learners. However, the effect modification when students have access to their ITER rating supports grade satisfaction bias in SRT. Since SRT are used for providing feedback to teachers and are considered when allocating teaching awards and making decisions on academic promotion of teachers, we feel that further studies are needed to confirm and explain the association between ITER ratings and SRT in addition to exploring other variables that may also impact the validity of SRT (Hornstein [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;] ).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-11&quot;&gt;References&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0128864809-12&quot;&gt;Citations&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;1 Anikeeff AM, Factors affecting student evaluation of college faculty members, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1953, 37, 458, 460, 10.1037/h0062861&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ulist&gt; &lt;item&gt;2 Berkowitz L, Troccoli BT, Feelings, direction of attention, and expressed evaluation of others, Cognition Emotion, 1990, 4, 305, 325, 10.1080/02699939008408080&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;3 Boring A, Ottoboni K, Stark PB, Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness, Retrieved from Science Open Research, 2016&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;4 Elster J, Sour grapes: Studies in the subversion of rationality, 1983, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;5 Erber R, Affective and semantic priming: Effects of mood on category accessibility and inference, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1991, 27, 480, 498, 10.1016/0022-1031(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib91&quot; id=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;91&lt;/reflink&gt;)90005-Q&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;6 Feldman KA, Grades and college students’ evaluations of their courses and teachers, Research in Higher Education, 1976, 4, 69, 111, 10.1007/BF00991462&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;7 Festinger L, Cognitive dissonance, Scientific American, 1962, 207, 93, 107, 10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;8 Frank JR, The CanMEDS 2005 physician competency framework. Better standards. Better physicians. Better care, 2005, Ottawa, The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;9 Greenwald AG, Gillmore GM, Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings, American Psychologist, 1997, 52, 1209, 1217, 10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1209&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;10 Haws J, Rannelli L, Schaefer JP, Zarnke K, Coderre S, Ravani P, McLaughlin K, The attributes of an effective teacher differ between the classroom and the clinical setting, Advances in Health Science Education Theory and Practice, 2016, 21, 833, 840, 10.1007/s10459-016-9669-6&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;11 Hornstein HA, Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance, Cogent Education, 2017, 4, 1304016, 10.1080/2331186X.2017.1304016&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;12 Howard GS, Maxwell SE, The correlation between grades and student satisfaction: a case of mistaken causation?, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1980, 72, 810, 820, 10.1037/0022-0663.72.6.810&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;13 Howard, G. S., &amp;amp; Maxwell, S. E. (1982). Do grades contaminate student evaluations of instruction?, Research in Higher Education, 16, 175-187., https://calgary.one45.com/&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;14 Isaacson RL, McKeachie WJ, Milholland JE, Lin YG, Hofeller M, Baerwaldt JW, Zinn KL, Dimensions of student evaluations of teaching, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 344, 351, 10.1037/h0042551&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;15 McKeachie WJ, Lin YG, Mann W, Student ratings of teacher effectiveness: Validity studies, American Educational Research Journal, 1971, 8, 435, 445, 10.3102/00028312008003435&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;16 McLaughlin K, Bates J, Konkin J, Woloschuk W, Suddards CA, Regehr G, A comparison of performance evaluations of students on longitudinal integrated clerkships and rotation-based clerkships, Academic Medicine, 2011, 86, Suppl, S25, S29, 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822a6eb6&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;17 Powell RW, Grades, learning, and student evaluation of instruction, Research in Higher Education, 1977, 7, 193, 205, 10.1007/BF00991986&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;18 Pratt M, Pratt TAEC, A study of student-teacher grading interaction process, Improving College and University Teaching, 1976, 24, 73, 80, 10.1080/00193089.1976.9927299&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;19 Rannelli L, Coderre S, Paget M, Woloschuk W, Wright B, McLaughlin K, How do medical students form impressions of the effectiveness of classroom teachers?, Medical Education, 2014, 48, 831, 837, 10.1111/medu.12420&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;20 Snyder CR, Clair M, Effects of expected and obtained grades on teacher evaluation and attribution of performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 68, 75, 82, 10.1037/0022-0663.68.1.75&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;21 Sutkin G, Wagner E, Harris I, Schiffer R, What makes a good clinical teacher in medicine? A review of literature, Academic Medicine, 2008, 83, 452, 466, 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31816bee61&lt;/item&gt; &lt;/ulist&gt; &lt;p&gt;PHOTO (COLOR)&lt;/p&gt; &lt;aug&gt; &lt;p&gt;By Michael Paget; Gurbir Brar; Pamela Veale; Kevin Busche; Sylvain Coderre; Wayne Woloschuk and Kevin McLaughlin&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/aug&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl1&quot; bibid=&quot;bib1&quot; firstref=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl2&quot; bibid=&quot;bib6&quot; firstref=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl3&quot; bibid=&quot;bib18&quot; firstref=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl4&quot; bibid=&quot;bib20&quot; firstref=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl5&quot; bibid=&quot;bib17&quot; firstref=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl6&quot; bibid=&quot;bib3&quot; firstref=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl7&quot; bibid=&quot;bib12&quot; firstref=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl8&quot; bibid=&quot;bib13&quot; firstref=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl9&quot; bibid=&quot;bib9&quot; firstref=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl10&quot; bibid=&quot;bib19&quot; firstref=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl11&quot; bibid=&quot;bib10&quot; firstref=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl12&quot; bibid=&quot;bib16&quot; firstref=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl13&quot; bibid=&quot;bib8&quot; firstref=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl14&quot; bibid=&quot;bib14&quot; firstref=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl15&quot; bibid=&quot;bib15&quot; firstref=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl16&quot; bibid=&quot;bib21&quot; firstref=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl17&quot; bibid=&quot;bib2&quot; firstref=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl18&quot; bibid=&quot;bib5&quot; firstref=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl19&quot; bibid=&quot;bib7&quot; firstref=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl20&quot; bibid=&quot;bib4&quot; firstref=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl21&quot; bibid=&quot;bib11&quot; firstref=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl22&quot; bibid=&quot;bib91&quot; firstref=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt;
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1174818
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Grades That Clinical Teachers Give Students Modifies the Grades They Receive
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Paget%2C+Michael%22&quot;&gt;Paget, Michael&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Brar%2C+Gurbir%22&quot;&gt;Brar, Gurbir&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Veale%2C+Pamela%22&quot;&gt;Veale, Pamela&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Busche%2C+Kevin%22&quot;&gt;Busche, Kevin&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Coderre%2C+Sylvain%22&quot;&gt;Coderre, Sylvain&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Woloschuk%2C+Wayne%22&quot;&gt;Woloschuk, Wayne&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22McLaughlin%2C+Kevin%22&quot;&gt;McLaughlin, Kevin&lt;/searchLink&gt; (ORCID &lt;externalLink term=&quot;http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3092-5325&quot;&gt;0000-0002-3092-5325&lt;/externalLink&gt;)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22Advances+in+Health+Sciences+Education%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Advances in Health Sciences Education&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. May 2018 23(2):241-247.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: service-ny@springer.com; Web site: http://www.springerlink.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Correlation%22&quot;&gt;Correlation&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Student+Evaluation+of+Teacher+Performance%22&quot;&gt;Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Regression+%28Statistics%29%22&quot;&gt;Regression (Statistics)&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Rating+Scales%22&quot;&gt;Rating Scales&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22&quot;&gt;Teacher Effectiveness&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Teacher+Evaluation%22&quot;&gt;Teacher Evaluation&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Grades+%28Scholastic%29%22&quot;&gt;Grades (Scholastic)&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Bias%22&quot;&gt;Bias&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Test+Validity%22&quot;&gt;Test Validity&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10459-017-9783-0
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1382-4996
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Prior studies have shown a correlation between the grades students receive and how they rate their teacher in the classroom. In this study, the authors probe this association on clinical rotations and explore potential mechanisms. All In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITERs) for students on mandatory clerkship rotations from April 1, 2013 to January 31, 2015 were matched with the corresponding student&#39;s rating of their teacher (SRT). The date and time that ITERs and SRTs were submitted was used to divide SRTs into those submitted before versus after the corresponding ITER was submitted. Multilevel, mixed effects linear regression was used to examine the association between SRT, ITER rating, and whether the ITER was submitted before or after SRT. Of 2373 paired evaluations, 1098 (46.3%) SRT were submitted before the teacher had submitted the ITER. There was a significant interaction between explanatory variables: when ITER ratings had not yet been submitted, the regression coefficient for this association was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [0.17, 0.33], p &lt; 0.001), whereas the regression coefficient was significantly higher when ITER ratings were submitted prior to SRT (0.40 [0.31, 0.49], p &lt; 0.001). Finding an association between SRT and ITER when students do not know their ITER ratings suggests that SRTs can capture attributes of effective teaching, but the effect modification when students have access to their ITER rating supports grade satisfaction bias. Further studies are needed to explain the mechanism of grade satisfaction and to identify other biases that may impact the validity of SRT.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 21
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1174818
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1174818
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10459-017-9783-0
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 241
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regression (Statistics)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rating Scales
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grades (Scholastic)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Grades That Clinical Teachers Give Students Modifies the Grades They Receive
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Paget, Michael
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brar, Gurbir
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Veale, Pamela
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Busche, Kevin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Coderre, Sylvain
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Woloschuk, Wayne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McLaughlin, Kevin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1382-4996
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 23
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Advances in Health Sciences Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1