Do Repeated Clinical Competency Ratings Stereotype Students?

Abstract

A stereotype is a generalization that protects itself from critique by limiting or distorting new information. The potential for stereotyping exists where faculty members repeatedly rate students' clinical competency. Stereotyping is difficult to study because of methodological problems. If, for example, a student's score remains low over repeated ratings, it may be because the faculty member has pegged the student as a poor performer or because the student is in fact a consistently low performer. An existing dataset of clinical competency ratings for almost 300 students was divided so that ratings given by faculty members who had evaluated students previously could be compared to ratings of the same students by faculty members who had not previously evaluated these students. This study supports the following conclusions: 1) repeating faculty members use both current information and carryover information from previous rating periods; 2) the amount of information carried over increases from quarter to quarter; and 3) faculty evaluators who use more carryover information are more accurate in predicting students' graduation competency level than are faculty members on their initial ratings of students. In conclusion, there is no evidence in this study that repeated clinical competency ratings promote stereotyping of students by faculty members.