| 1.
Obtain enough appropriate samples of student performance. Include a wide
range of performance opportunities and situations of the performance of interest. For
example, capability of performing a history and physical exam is best done on a variety of
patients in a variety of settings. |
| 2.
Improve the accuracy of the observers’ judgments. |
Obtain agreement on observation items and
scoring system used.
Use multiple observers.
Increase the observer’s skills in teaching and evaluation.
|
| 3.
Improve the accuracy of performance documentation. |
Develop good rating instruments.
- Use clear descriptions for the points on the evaluation
form.
- Avoid asking for judgments about behaviors that cannot be
observed.
- Include instructions that clearly describe what must be
observed and recorded
|
Be aware of, and avoid, common rating errors
- Personal bias -- the tendency to
systematically rate students on only a part of the rating scale range.
Generosity -- Use of the middle and high end of
the scale
Severity -- Use of the middle and low end of the
scale
Central tendency -- Avoidance of the extreme values
|
|
- Halo effect -- Rating students’ skills
on various dimensions similarly because of strong feelings about a single dimension. Example:
Students who participate well on the team are rated highly in all areas, even when their
skills differ across areas.
- Logic errors -- Rating students similarly
on two areas with observation on only one because the two areas are believed to be
related, even though they may not be. Example: Students who relate
well to the instructor are rated highly on relating to patients, because the instructor
assumes those areas are similar.
- Peer pressure -- Rating students’
performance to improve one’s standing with colleagues. Example:
Rating students very high (or very low) so that colleagues will think you are a good or
tough instructor.
|
