Is It All About the Form? Norm- vs Criterion-Referenced Ratings and Faculty Inter-Rater Reliability.

Abstract

Background: Little research to date has examined the quality of data obtained from resident performance evaluations. This study sought to address this need and compared inter-rater reliability obtained from norm-referenced and criterion-referenced evaluation scaling approaches for faculty completing resident performance evaluations. Methods: Resident performance evaluation data were examined from 2 institutions (3 programs, 2 internal medicine and 1 surgery; 426 residents in total), with 4 evaluation forms: 2 criterion-referenced (1 with an additional norm-referenced item) and 2 norm-referenced. Faculty inter-rater reliability was calculated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) (1,10) for each competency area within the form. ICCs were transformed to z-scores, and 95% CIs were computed. Reliabilities for each evaluation form and competency, averages within competency, and averages within scaling type were examined. Results: Inter-rater reliability averages were higher for all competencies that used criterion-referenced scaling relative to those that used norm-referenced scaling. Aggregate scores of all independent categories (competencies and the items assessing overall competence) for criterion-referenced scaling demonstrated higher reliability (z=1.37, CI 1.26-1.48) than norm-referenced scaling (z=0.88, CI 0.77-0.99). Moreover, examination of the distributions of composite scores (average of all competencies and raters for each individual being rated) suggested that the criterion-referenced evaluations better represented the performance continuum. Conclusion: Criterion-referenced evaluation approaches appear to provide superior inter-rater reliability relative to norm-referenced evaluation scaling approaches. Although more research is needed to identify resident evaluation best practices, using criterion-referenced scaling may provide more valid data than norm-referenced scaling.