Evaluation of interns by senior residents and faculty: is there any difference?

  Both senior residents and faculty members evaluate family practice interns (PGY‐1) on the inpatient family medicine service at the University of Missouri‐Columbia. The purpose of this study was to investigate the content and nature of narrative comments on a clinical evaluation sheet. Methods  Objective 1 . The authors placed the subjective comments made by faculty and senior residents in their evaluations of PGY‐1 residents into 12 distinctive categories. Objective 2 . Comments were coded with a positive or negative valence. Objective 3 . The genders of the evaluator and learner were recorded. Results  All evaluations made between 1996 and 1999 were analysed. A total of 1341 individual comments were reviewed. Objective 1 . Categories used most often were generic comments (20.2%), personal attributes (18%), and clinical competence (14.1%). There was no difference in category use based on the experience level of the evaluator ( P =  0.17). Objective 2 . The majority of the comments (81.9%) were positive in nature. Senior faculty members were significantly less likely to make negative comments than were junior faculty members or senior residents ( P =  0.004). Objective 3 . There were no differences in category use based on the gender of the evaluator ( P =  0.13). Conclusions  Objective 1 . Narrative evaluation comments may be placed into 12 distinctive categories. Most comments are generic and do not help to inform learning. Objective 2 . A total of 82% of comments were positive. Residents were more likely to make negative comments than senior faculty members. Objective 3 . There was no demonstrable gender bias in writing negative comments.