• 1.

    Isaacson J, Stacy A: Rubrics for clinical evaluation: objectifying the subjective experience. Nurse Educ Pract 9: 134, 2009.

  • 2.

    Magarian G, Mazur D: Evaluation of students in medicine clerkships. Acad Med 65: 341, 1990.

  • 3.

    Plymale M, Donnelly M, Lawton J, et al: Faculty evaluation of surgery clerkship students: important components of written comments. Acad Med 77: S45, 2002.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Colletti L: Difficulty with negative feedback: face-to-face evaluation of junior medical student clinical performance results in grade inflation. J Surg Res 90: 82, 2000.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Sander R, Trible K: The virtual clinical evaluation tool. J Nurs Educ 47: 33, 2008.

  • 6.

    Speer A, Solomon D, Fincher R: Grade inflation in internal medicine clerkships: results of a national survey. Teach Learn Med 12: 112, 2000.

  • 7.

    Kassebaum D, Eaglen R: Shortcomings in the evaluation of students' clinical skills and behaviors in medical school. Acad Med 74: 841, 1999.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    O'Donohue W, Wergin J: Evaluation of medical students during a clinical clerkship in internal medicine. J Med Educ 53: 55, 1978.

  • 9.

    Fowell S, Bligh J: Recent developments in assessing medical students. Postgrad Med J 74: 18, 1998.

  • 10.

    Awad SS, Liscum KR, Aoki N, et al: Does the subjective evaluation of medical student surgical knowledge correlate with written and oral exam performance? J Surg Res 104: 36, 2002.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Boateng B, Bass L, Blaszak R, et al: The development of a competency-based assessment rubric to measure resident milestones. J Grad Med Educ 1: 45, 2009.

  • 12.

    “Rubric,” in Random House Webster's College Dictionary , 2nd Ed, p 1679, Random House Reference & Information Publishing Group, New York, 1993.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Stevens D, Levi A : Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment Tool to Save Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback and Promote Student Learning , p 3, Stylus Publishing LLC , Sterling, VA, 2004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Marienfeld R, Reid J: Subjective vs. objective evaluation of clinical clerks. N Engl J Med 302: 1036, 1980.

  • 15.

    Geertsma R, Chapman J: The evaluation of medical students. J Med Educ 42: 938, 1967.

  • 16.

    Andre K: Grading student clinical practice performance: the Australian perspective. Nurse Educ Today 20: 672, 2000.

  • 17.

    Walsh C, Seldomridge L: Clinical grades: upward bound. J Nurs Educ 44: 162, 2005.

  • 18.

    Dudas R, Colbert J, Goldstein S, et al: Validity of faculty and resident global assessment of medical students' clinical knowledge during their pediatrics clerkship. Acad Pediatr 12: 138, 2012.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Kreiter C, Ferguson K: The empirical validity of straight-line responses on a clinical evaluation form. Acad Med 77: 414, 2002.

  • 20.

    Hepworth S: Professional judgment and nurse education. Nurse Educ Today 9: 408, 1989.

  • 21.

    Mahara M: A perspective on clinical evaluation in nursing education. J Adv Nurs 28: 1339, 1998.

  • 22.

    Ramsey P, Shannon N, Fleming L, et al: Use of objective examinations in medicine clerkships: ten-year experience. Am J Med 81: 669, 1986.

  • 23.

    White CB, Dey EL, Fantone JC: Analysis of factors that predict clinical performance in medical school. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 14: 455, 2009.

  • 24.

    Roop S, Pangaro L: Effect of clinical teaching on student performance during a medicine clerkship. Am J Med 110: 205, 2001.

  • 25.

    van Hell E, Kuks J, Schönrock-Adema J, et al: Transition to clinical training: influence of pre-clinical knowledge and skills, and consequences for clinical performance. Med Educ 42: 830, 2008.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Chambers D: Do repeated clinical competency ratings stereotype students? J Dent Educ 68: 1220, 2004.

  • 27.

    Lasater K: Clinical judgment development: using simulation to create an assessment rubric. J Nurs Educ 46: 496, 2007.

The Use of Rubrics in the Clinical Evaluation of Podiatric Medical Students

Objectification of the Subjective Experience

Kevin M Smith College of Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, Des Moines University, Des Moines, IA.

Search for other papers by Kevin M Smith in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DPM, MS
,
Simon Geletta College of Health Sciences, Des Moines University, Des Moines, IA.

Search for other papers by Simon Geletta in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, and
Austin McArdle College of Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, Des Moines University, Des Moines, IA.

Search for other papers by Austin McArdle in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS

Background: We assessed the differences in podiatric medical students' clinical professionalism objective scores (CPOSs) by comparing a previous nonrubric evaluation tool with a more recently implemented objective-centered rubric evaluation tool. This type of study has never been performed or reported on in the podiatric medical education literature.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 89 third-year podiatric medical students between academic years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. A Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was performed to compare CPOSs from the students' first (CPOS1) and second (CPOS2) rotations. A correlation analysis was performed comparing students' grade point averages (GPAs) with each of the individual CPOSs to verify the validity of the rubric evaluation tool.

Results: The Pearson correlation coefficients for the relationship between 2012 CPOS1 and CPOS2 and GPA were r = 0.233 (P ≤ .093) and r = 0.290 (P < .035) and for the relationship between 2013 CPOS1 and CPOS2 and GPA were r = 0.525 (P = .001) and r = 0.730 (P < .001).

Conclusions: These findings suggest that the use of a rubric in the evaluation of podiatric medical students' CPOSs is correlated with their GPAs, and CPOS2 demonstrated a higher correlation than CPOS1. We believe that implementation of the rubric evaluation tool has increased the accuracy of the evaluation of podiatric medical students with respect to CPOSs.

Corresponding author: Kevin M. Smith, DPM, MS, College of Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, Des Moines University, 3200 Grand Ave, Des Moines, IA 50312. (E-mail: kevin.smith@dmu.edu)