Frontline assessors’ opinions about grading committees in a medicine clerkship

TL;DR

Medical staff at Washington University assessed how grading committees affect fairness and clarity in student evaluations during a medicine clerkship.

Contribution

This study provides frontline assessors' perspectives on grading committees in medical education, highlighting both benefits and challenges.

Findings

Grading committees were perceived to improve fairness and reduce assessor pressure.

Assessors reported challenges in communication and understanding the new grading process.

Training in formal assessment was identified as a need among participants.

Abstract

Collective decision-making by grading committees has been proposed as a strategy to improve the fairness and consistency of grading and summative assessment compared to individual evaluations. In the 2020–2021 academic year, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis (WUSM) instituted grading committees in the assessment of third-year medical students on core clerkships, including the Internal Medicine clerkship. We explored how frontline assessors perceive the role of grading committees in the Internal Medicine core clerkship at WUSM and sought to identify challenges that could be addressed in assessor development initiatives.

We conducted four semi-structured focus group interviews with resident (n = 6) and faculty (n = 17) volunteers from inpatient and outpatient Internal Medicine clerkship rotations. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Participants felt that the transition to a grading committee had benefits and drawbacks for both assessors and students. Grading committees were thought to improve grading fairness and reduce pressure on assessors. However, some participants perceived a loss of responsibility in students’ grading. Furthermore, assessors recognized persistent challenges in communicating students’ performance via assessment forms and misunderstandings about the new grading process. Interviewees identified a need for more training in formal assessment; however, there was no universally preferred training modality.

Frontline assessors view the switch from individual graders to a grading committee as beneficial due to a perceived reduction of bias and improvement in grading fairness; however, they report ongoing challenges in the utilization of assessment tools and incomplete understanding of the grading and assessment process.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-024-05604-x.

Figures