Os diferentes olhares na avaliação de alunos em estágio clínico supervisionado

Abstract

To compare medical students' global itemized ratings (GIR) and real-case structured clinical assessment (RC-SCA), generated by faculty members from three different specialties (Gynecology-O&G, Internal Medicine-IM, Pediatrics-Ped). 106 Y4 learners were assessed by one faculty member from each specialty, who filled in GIR, consisting of 6 technical domains (mean score GIRt) and 7 humanistic domains (mean score GIRh), on a 0-10 scale, and resultant RC-SCA, from direct attendance observation. Statistical analyses used Cronbach coefficient, Friedman and Wilcoxon paired tests, Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients, Euclidean distances. Significance level=5%. High internal consistency was observed in the three GIR (> 0.92). Ratings were negatively skewed. Ped scores were significantly lower than O&G and IM (median differences between 0.50 and 0.67), with low correlations between them (-0.02<R<0.48). the domains that had greater impact on the reliability of GIR were: clinical judgment (O&G and Ped), problem-solving (IM), and self-reflective skills (Ped). O&G and Ped scores showed the smallest agreement; GIRt Ped scores showed the greatest disagreement with all the other scores. The specialties have different views on how to evaluate students' skills, inspite of using similar instruments, which can be a reflection of their 'culture'. the challenge remains to minimize these differences through faculty development activities.