The mini-clinical evaluation exercise during medical clerkships: are learning needs and learning goals aligned?

OBJECTIVES The generation of learning goals (LGs) that are aligned with learning needs (LNs) is one of the main purposes of formative workplace-based assessment. In this study, we aimed to analyse how often trainer–student pairs identified corresponding LNs in mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) encounters and to what degree these LNs aligned with recorded LGs, taking into account the social environment (e.g. clinic size) in which the mini-CEX was conducted. METHODS Retrospective analyses of adapted mini-CEX forms (trainers’ and students’ assessments) completed by all Year 4 medical students during clerkships were performed. Learning needs were defined by the lowest score(s) assigned to one or more of the mini-CEX domains. Learning goals were categorised qualitatively according to their correspondence with the six mini-CEX domains (e.g. history taking, professionalism). Following descriptive analyses of LNs and LGs, multi-level logistic regression models were used to predict LGs by identified LNs and social context variables. RESULTS A total of 512 trainers and 165 students conducted 1783 mini-CEXs (98% completion rate). Concordantly, trainer–student pairs most often identified LNs in the domains of ‘clinical reasoning’ (23% of 1167 complete forms), ‘organisation/efficiency’ (20%) and ‘physical examination’ (20%). At least one ‘defined’ LG was noted on 313 student forms (18% of 1710). Of the 446 LGs noted in total, the most frequently noted were ‘physical examination’ (49%) and ‘history taking’ (21%). Corresponding LNs as well as social context factors (e.g. clinic size) were found to be predictors of these LGs. CONCLUSIONS Although trainer–student pairs often agreed in the LNs they identified, many assessments did not result in aligned LGs. The sparseness of LGs, their dependency on social context and their partial non-alignment with students’ LNs raise questions about how the full potential of the mini-CEX as not only a ‘diagnostic’ but also an ‘educational’ tool can be exploited.

Evaluation of leaders – does gender still matter?

Purpose: Leadership positions are still stereotyped as male, especially in male-dominated fields such as STEM. Therefore, women in such positions run the risk of being evaluated less favorably than men. Our study investigates how female and male leaders in existing teams (engineering project) are evaluated, and how these evaluations change over time. Design/Methodology: Participants worked in 45 teams to develop specific engineering projects. Evaluations of 45 leaders (33% women) by 258 team members (39% women) were analyzed, that is, leaders’ self-evaluation and their evaluation by team members. Results: Although female and male leaders did not differ in their self-evaluations at the beginning of the project, female leaders evaluated themselves better within time. However, team members evaluated female leaders better than male leaders at the beginning of the project. These gender differences disappeared over the time. Limitations: It should be replicated in a non-student sample. Implications: The results show that female leaders entering a male-dominated field (engineering) are evaluated better by team members than male leaders at the beginning of the team work, in line with the ‘shifting standard model’ (Biernat & Fuegen, 2001). While the initial impression formation of female and male leaders is influenced by category membership, its impact decreases over time as a consequence of individualization (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990); this results in similar evaluations over time. Originality: To our knowledge this is the first study to systematically test perceptions of change in the evaluation over time of female and male leaders in natural setting.