The "good" dean's Letter

Christopher S. Kiefer, James E. Colletti, M. Fernanda Bellolio, Erik P. Hess, Dale P Woolridge, Kristen B. Thomas, Annie T. Sadosty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether a correlation exists between the term "good" on the summative, comparative assessment of a student's Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) and his or her actual performance in medical school. METHOD: The authors reviewed the MSPEs submitted to three residency programs to determine the presence of the term "good" in either the summary paragraph or the appendices. Next, they noted, for institutions using "good," the percentile rankings of those students who received "good" as a descriptor. To examine the consistency among institutions regarding the percentile ranking denoted by "good," they dichotomized the data into students below and above the bottom 25th percentile. They analyzed the data using a nonparametric test because of their nonnormal distribution. RESULTS: The authors collected MSPEs from 122 of the 125 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools that were graduating students in 2008. Of these 122 institutions, 34 (28%) used the term "good." All 34 institutions used the term to characterize students in the bottom 50% of the graduating class. The authors found a significant difference in the percentile ranking of students described as "good" between institutions using it to describe the bottom 25% and institutions using the term to describe those in the 25th to 50th percentiles (median ranking of 12.5% versus 30%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the term "good" in the MSPE describes students in the bottom 50% of the class; therefore, the term "good," as used to describe performance in medical school, consistently indicates below-average performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1705-1708
Number of pages4
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume85
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2010

Fingerprint

Students
ranking
Medical Schools
student
performance
Medical Students
medical student
school
Internship and Residency
Medical Education
evaluation
education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Kiefer, C. S., Colletti, J. E., Bellolio, M. F., Hess, E. P., Woolridge, D. P., Thomas, K. B., & Sadosty, A. T. (2010). The "good" dean's Letter. Academic Medicine, 85(11), 1705-1708. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f55a10

The "good" dean's Letter. / Kiefer, Christopher S.; Colletti, James E.; Bellolio, M. Fernanda; Hess, Erik P.; Woolridge, Dale P; Thomas, Kristen B.; Sadosty, Annie T.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 85, No. 11, 11.2010, p. 1705-1708.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kiefer, CS, Colletti, JE, Bellolio, MF, Hess, EP, Woolridge, DP, Thomas, KB & Sadosty, AT 2010, 'The "good" dean's Letter', Academic Medicine, vol. 85, no. 11, pp. 1705-1708. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f55a10
Kiefer CS, Colletti JE, Bellolio MF, Hess EP, Woolridge DP, Thomas KB et al. The "good" dean's Letter. Academic Medicine. 2010 Nov;85(11):1705-1708. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f55a10
Kiefer, Christopher S. ; Colletti, James E. ; Bellolio, M. Fernanda ; Hess, Erik P. ; Woolridge, Dale P ; Thomas, Kristen B. ; Sadosty, Annie T. / The "good" dean's Letter. In: Academic Medicine. 2010 ; Vol. 85, No. 11. pp. 1705-1708.
@article{a387f5764c9e4261bedd97fcc48bea90,
title = "The {"}good{"} dean's Letter",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To determine whether a correlation exists between the term {"}good{"} on the summative, comparative assessment of a student's Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) and his or her actual performance in medical school. METHOD: The authors reviewed the MSPEs submitted to three residency programs to determine the presence of the term {"}good{"} in either the summary paragraph or the appendices. Next, they noted, for institutions using {"}good,{"} the percentile rankings of those students who received {"}good{"} as a descriptor. To examine the consistency among institutions regarding the percentile ranking denoted by {"}good,{"} they dichotomized the data into students below and above the bottom 25th percentile. They analyzed the data using a nonparametric test because of their nonnormal distribution. RESULTS: The authors collected MSPEs from 122 of the 125 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools that were graduating students in 2008. Of these 122 institutions, 34 (28{\%}) used the term {"}good.{"} All 34 institutions used the term to characterize students in the bottom 50{\%} of the graduating class. The authors found a significant difference in the percentile ranking of students described as {"}good{"} between institutions using it to describe the bottom 25{\%} and institutions using the term to describe those in the 25th to 50th percentiles (median ranking of 12.5{\%} versus 30{\%}, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the term {"}good{"} in the MSPE describes students in the bottom 50{\%} of the class; therefore, the term {"}good,{"} as used to describe performance in medical school, consistently indicates below-average performance.",
author = "Kiefer, {Christopher S.} and Colletti, {James E.} and Bellolio, {M. Fernanda} and Hess, {Erik P.} and Woolridge, {Dale P} and Thomas, {Kristen B.} and Sadosty, {Annie T.}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f55a10",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "1705--1708",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The "good" dean's Letter

AU - Kiefer, Christopher S.

AU - Colletti, James E.

AU - Bellolio, M. Fernanda

AU - Hess, Erik P.

AU - Woolridge, Dale P

AU - Thomas, Kristen B.

AU - Sadosty, Annie T.

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - PURPOSE: To determine whether a correlation exists between the term "good" on the summative, comparative assessment of a student's Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) and his or her actual performance in medical school. METHOD: The authors reviewed the MSPEs submitted to three residency programs to determine the presence of the term "good" in either the summary paragraph or the appendices. Next, they noted, for institutions using "good," the percentile rankings of those students who received "good" as a descriptor. To examine the consistency among institutions regarding the percentile ranking denoted by "good," they dichotomized the data into students below and above the bottom 25th percentile. They analyzed the data using a nonparametric test because of their nonnormal distribution. RESULTS: The authors collected MSPEs from 122 of the 125 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools that were graduating students in 2008. Of these 122 institutions, 34 (28%) used the term "good." All 34 institutions used the term to characterize students in the bottom 50% of the graduating class. The authors found a significant difference in the percentile ranking of students described as "good" between institutions using it to describe the bottom 25% and institutions using the term to describe those in the 25th to 50th percentiles (median ranking of 12.5% versus 30%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the term "good" in the MSPE describes students in the bottom 50% of the class; therefore, the term "good," as used to describe performance in medical school, consistently indicates below-average performance.

AB - PURPOSE: To determine whether a correlation exists between the term "good" on the summative, comparative assessment of a student's Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) and his or her actual performance in medical school. METHOD: The authors reviewed the MSPEs submitted to three residency programs to determine the presence of the term "good" in either the summary paragraph or the appendices. Next, they noted, for institutions using "good," the percentile rankings of those students who received "good" as a descriptor. To examine the consistency among institutions regarding the percentile ranking denoted by "good," they dichotomized the data into students below and above the bottom 25th percentile. They analyzed the data using a nonparametric test because of their nonnormal distribution. RESULTS: The authors collected MSPEs from 122 of the 125 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools that were graduating students in 2008. Of these 122 institutions, 34 (28%) used the term "good." All 34 institutions used the term to characterize students in the bottom 50% of the graduating class. The authors found a significant difference in the percentile ranking of students described as "good" between institutions using it to describe the bottom 25% and institutions using the term to describe those in the 25th to 50th percentiles (median ranking of 12.5% versus 30%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the term "good" in the MSPE describes students in the bottom 50% of the class; therefore, the term "good," as used to describe performance in medical school, consistently indicates below-average performance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649319494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78649319494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f55a10

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f55a10

M3 - Article

C2 - 20881821

AN - SCOPUS:78649319494

VL - 85

SP - 1705

EP - 1708

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 11

ER -