Abstract
The reliability and accuracy of peer ratings by general surgery residents were examined. Thirty-two residents anonymously and voluntarily evaluated their peers on ten areas of perfor mance in 1988; twenty-eight residents were evaluated in 1989, and thirty-three were evaluated in 1990. Resident peer ratings were found highly reliable, with no evidence of serious restriction of range or leniency effects. The results indicated a high level of test-retest reliability replicated across three academic years. Halo effects appear to pose the greatest threat to rater accuracy. There was some evidence that chief residents exhibit less halo effect than junior residents when rating peers.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
