Race and Gender Bias in Clerkship Grading.

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Teaching and Learning in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-19 DOI:10.1080/10401334.2023.2224789
Jacqueline L Gauer, Taj Mustapha, Claudio Violato
{"title":"Race and Gender Bias in Clerkship Grading.","authors":"Jacqueline L Gauer, Taj Mustapha, Claudio Violato","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2023.2224789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Phenomenon:</i></b> Existing literature, as well as anecdotal evidence, suggests that tiered clinical grading systems may display systematic demographic biases. This study aimed to investigate these potential inequities in-depth. Specifically, this study attempted to address the following gaps in the literature: (1) studying grades actually assigned to students (as opposed to self-reported ones), (2) using longitudinal data over an 8-year period, providing stability of data, (3) analyzing three important, potentially confounding covariates, (4) using a comprehensive multivariate statistical design, and (5) investigating not just the main effects of gender and race, but also their potential interaction. <b><i>Approach:</i></b> Participants included 1,905 graduates (985 women, 51.7%) who received the Doctor of Medicine degree between 2014 and 2021. Most of the participants were white (<i>n</i> = 1,310, 68.8%) and about one-fifth were nonwhite (<i>n</i> = 397, 20.8%). There were no reported race data for 10.4% (<i>n</i> = 198). To explore potential differential grading, a two-way multivariate analysis of covariance was employed to examine the impact of race and gender on grades in eight required clerkships, adjusting for prior academic performance. <b><i>Findings:</i></b> There were two significant main effects, race and gender, but no interaction effect between gender and race. Women received higher grades on average on all eight clerkships, and white students received higher grades on average on four of the eight clerkships (Medicine, Pediatrics, Surgery, Obstetrics/Gynecology). These relationships held even when accounting for prior performance covariates. <b><i>Insights:</i></b> These findings provide additional evidence that tiered grading systems may be subject to systematic demographic biases. It is difficult to tease apart the contributions of various factors to the observed differences in gender and race on clerkship grades, and the interactions that produce these biases may be quite complex. The simplest solution to cut through the tangled web of grading biases may be to move away from a tiered grading system altogether.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"304-311"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2023.2224789","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Phenomenon: Existing literature, as well as anecdotal evidence, suggests that tiered clinical grading systems may display systematic demographic biases. This study aimed to investigate these potential inequities in-depth. Specifically, this study attempted to address the following gaps in the literature: (1) studying grades actually assigned to students (as opposed to self-reported ones), (2) using longitudinal data over an 8-year period, providing stability of data, (3) analyzing three important, potentially confounding covariates, (4) using a comprehensive multivariate statistical design, and (5) investigating not just the main effects of gender and race, but also their potential interaction. Approach: Participants included 1,905 graduates (985 women, 51.7%) who received the Doctor of Medicine degree between 2014 and 2021. Most of the participants were white (n = 1,310, 68.8%) and about one-fifth were nonwhite (n = 397, 20.8%). There were no reported race data for 10.4% (n = 198). To explore potential differential grading, a two-way multivariate analysis of covariance was employed to examine the impact of race and gender on grades in eight required clerkships, adjusting for prior academic performance. Findings: There were two significant main effects, race and gender, but no interaction effect between gender and race. Women received higher grades on average on all eight clerkships, and white students received higher grades on average on four of the eight clerkships (Medicine, Pediatrics, Surgery, Obstetrics/Gynecology). These relationships held even when accounting for prior performance covariates. Insights: These findings provide additional evidence that tiered grading systems may be subject to systematic demographic biases. It is difficult to tease apart the contributions of various factors to the observed differences in gender and race on clerkship grades, and the interactions that produce these biases may be quite complex. The simplest solution to cut through the tangled web of grading biases may be to move away from a tiered grading system altogether.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实习评分中的种族和性别偏见。
现象:现有文献以及轶事证据表明,临床分级系统可能存在系统性的人口统计偏见。本研究旨在深入调查这些潜在的不公平现象。具体来说,本研究试图弥补文献中的以下不足:(1)研究实际分配给学生的分数(而不是自我报告的分数);(2)使用 8 年的纵向数据,以提供数据的稳定性;(3)分析三个重要的、可能相互混淆的协变量;(4)使用全面的多元统计设计;(5)不仅研究性别和种族的主要影响,还研究它们之间的潜在交互作用。研究方法参与者包括 1,905 名在 2014 年至 2021 年期间获得医学博士学位的毕业生(985 名女性,占 51.7%)。大部分参与者为白人(n = 1,310, 68.8%),约五分之一为非白人(n = 397, 20.8%)。10.4%的参与者(n = 198)没有种族数据报告。为了探究潜在的评分差异,我们采用了双向多变量协方差分析法来研究种族和性别对八门必修实习课成绩的影响,并对之前的学习成绩进行了调整。研究结果种族和性别有两个重要的主效应,但性别和种族之间没有交互效应。女生在所有八项实习中的平均成绩都较高,白人学生在八项实习中的四项(内科、儿科、外科、妇产科)中的平均成绩都较高。即使考虑到先前成绩的协变量,这些关系也依然存在。启示这些发现提供了更多证据,表明分级评分系统可能会受到系统性人口统计偏差的影响。很难区分各种因素对观察到的实习成绩中性别和种族差异的影响,而且产生这些偏差的相互作用可能相当复杂。最简单的解决方法可能是完全摒弃分级评分系统,以消除纠缠不清的评分偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Teaching and Learning in Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Teaching and Learning in Medicine ( TLM) is an international, forum for scholarship on teaching and learning in the health professions. Its international scope reflects the common challenge faced by all medical educators: fostering the development of capable, well-rounded, and continuous learners prepared to practice in a complex, high-stakes, and ever-changing clinical environment. TLM''s contributors and readership comprise behavioral scientists and health care practitioners, signaling the value of integrating diverse perspectives into a comprehensive understanding of learning and performance. The journal seeks to provide the theoretical foundations and practical analysis needed for effective educational decision making in such areas as admissions, instructional design and delivery, performance assessment, remediation, technology-assisted instruction, diversity management, and faculty development, among others. TLM''s scope includes all levels of medical education, from premedical to postgraduate and continuing medical education, with articles published in the following categories:
期刊最新文献
Policy analysis: an underutilised methodology in health professions education research. Psychometric properties of the Ethiopian national licensing exam in medicine: an analysis of multiple-choice questions using classical test theory. Disability Education for Health Personnel and Impact on Health Outcomes for Persons with Autism: A Scoping Review. Examining Scientific Inquiry of Queerness in Medical Education: A Queer Reading. "I have established this support network": How Chosen Kin Support Women Medical Students During their First Two Years in Medical School.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1