Context Methodological shortcomings in medical education research are often attributed to insufficient funding, yet an association between funding and study quality has not been established.Objectives To develop and evaluate an instrument for measuring the quality of education research studies and to assess the relationship between funding and study quality.Design, Setting, and Participants Internal consistency, interrater and intrarater reliability, and criterion validity were determined for a 10-item medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI). This was applied to 210 medical education research studies published in 13 peer-reviewed journals between September 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003. The amount of funding obtained per study and the publication record of the first author were determined by survey. Main Outcome MeasuresStudy quality as measured by the MERSQI (potential maximum total score, 18; maximum domain score, 3), amount of funding per study, and previous publications by the first author. ResultsThe mean MERSQI score was 9.95 (SD, 2.34; range,(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16). Mean domain scores were highest for data analysis (2.58) and lowest for validity (0.69). Intraclass correlation coefficient ranges for interrater and intrarater reliability were 0.72 to 0.98 and 0.78 to 0.998, respectively. Total MERSQI scores were associated with expert quality ratings (Spearman , 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.84; PϽ.

Background Deficiencies in medical education research quality are widely acknowledged. Content, internal structure, and criterion validity evidence support the use of the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to measure education research quality, but predictive validity evidence has not been explored. Objective To describe the quality of manuscripts submitted to the 2008 Journal of General Internal Medicine ( JGIM ) medical education issue and determine whether MERSQI scores predict editorial decisions. Design and Participants Cross-sectional study of original, quantitative research studies submitted for publication. Measurements Study quality measured by MERSQI scores (possible range 5–18). Results Of 131 submitted manuscripts, 100 met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) total MERSQI score was 9.6 (2.6), range 5–15.5. Most studies used single-group cross-sectional (54%) or pre-post designs (32%), were conducted at one institution (78%), and reported satisfaction or opinion outcomes (56%). Few (36%) reported validity evidence for evaluation instruments. A one-point increase in MERSQI score was associated with editorial decisions to send manuscripts for peer review versus reject without review (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.07–1.61, p = 0.009) and to invite revisions after review versus reject after review (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.05–1.58, p = 0.02). MERSQI scores predicted final acceptance versus rejection (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.10–1.58, p = 0.003). The mean total MERSQI score of accepted manuscripts was significantly higher than rejected manuscripts (10.7 [2.5] versus 9.0 [2.4], p = 0.003). Conclusions MERSQI scores predicted editorial decisions and identified areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses in submitted manuscripts. Researchers, reviewers, and editors might use this instrument as a measure of methodological quality. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0664-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Participants report a disconnection between their own priorities and those of the dominant culture in academic medicine. Efforts to retain women faculty in academic medicine may include exploring the aspects of an academic career that they value most and providing support and recognition accordingly.