First Year Medical Student Peer Nominations of Professionalism: A Methodological Detective Story about Making Sense of Non‐Sense

Abstract

This article explores the assessment of professionalism within a cohort of medical students during a sequential 13-week medical school histology and anatomy course. Across seven data points, students were asked to identify a professionalism role model from amongst their peers and to score Likert-structured rationales for their decision. Based on density scores, an initial social network analysis identified six peer-nomination "stars." However, analysis of these stars revealed considerable variability and random-like "noise" in both the nomination and explanation data sets. Subsequent analyses of both data sets explored the possibility of underlying patterns in this noise using tests of reliability, principal components factor analysis, and fixed-effects regression analysis. These explorations revealed the presence of two dimensions (professional vs. supportive) in how students sought to explain their nomination decisions. Although data variability remained quite high, significantly less variability was present in the professional than in the supportive dimension, suggesting that academic helpfulness rationales are both empirically distinct and more mutable than rationales grounded in professionalism-related factors. In addition, data showed that the greater the stability in one's choice of a professionalism role model nomination over the T1-T7 data periods, the more stable one's reasons for that nomination-both for professionalism and supportive dimensions. Results indicate that while peer assessment of professionalism by first-year medical students may not be very reliable, students can differentiate between more personal and professional factors, even at this early stage in their professional development. Formal instruction within the pre-clinical curriculum should recognize and address this distinction. Anat Sci Educ. © 2018 American Association of Anatomists.

An Insight into Professional Identity Formation: Qualitative Analyses of Two Reflection Interventions During the Dissection Course

“…A broad variety of instruments assessing professionalism have been published (Bryan et al, 2005;Schubert et al, 2008;Gregory et al, 2009;Camp et al, 2010;Li et al, 2017;Mullikin et al, 2019). However, most of these-like direct observations (e.g., mini clinical examination) or collated views (e.g., multisource feedback)-only apply to a clinical setting (Hodges et al, 2019).…”

“…Few measures are regularly implemented in preclinical medical education, the most common being a reflective approach (Maudsley and Strivens, 2000b;Sandars, 2009;Mann et al, 2009). Other instruments include situational judgment tests (Schubert et al, 2008), peer and self-evaluation (Bryan et al, 2005;Gregory et al, 2009), individual and group feedback (Camp et al, 2010), and peer nominations (Mullikin et al, 2019). In the curriculum described in the present study, a reflective approach utilizing a portfolio and academic mentors was chosen, as this approach can serve as a measure across 6 years of medical education, whereas other interventions are only intermittent.…”

Building Professionalism in Human Dissection Room as a Component of Hidden Curriculum Delivery: A Systematic Review of Good Practices

“…Application of the “hidden curriculum” is well documented within the context of anatomical sciences education and particularly in relation to the human dissection room (Finn et al, ; Hafferty and Finn, ; Mullikin et al, ). Although the “hidden curriculum” contributes to inculcation of all forms of human skills (a budding physician is expected to possess) during the course of human dissection, available literature documents precise association with the development of professionalism.…”

In Pursuit of Excellence Reconsidered: Expertise and Expert Performance in the Teaching, Learning, and Application of Anatomy

“…For many anatomy educators, student evaluations of teaching have stood as the “grim reaper” for quality improvement. Despite the growing evidence questioning the reliability of student feedback (Uttl et al, ; Mullikin et al, ), its impact as a measure of faculty teaching performance remains the default standard for most; mainly because it is the only metric available or used by many departments and institutions. Often instructors who are more likable, charismatic, animated, or entertaining receive disproportionally better evaluations (Delucchi, ; Titus, ).…”