成绩评估中的内隐第一印象与外显第一印象:当学习者成绩发生变化时,评分者会克服他们的第一印象吗?

IF 3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Advances in Health Sciences Education Pub Date : 2023-11-27 DOI:10.1007/s10459-023-10302-2
Timothy J. Wood, Vijay J. Daniels, Debra Pugh, Claire Touchie, Samantha Halman, Susan Humphrey-Murto
{"title":"成绩评估中的内隐第一印象与外显第一印象:当学习者成绩发生变化时,评分者会克服他们的第一印象吗?","authors":"Timothy J. Wood,&nbsp;Vijay J. Daniels,&nbsp;Debra Pugh,&nbsp;Claire Touchie,&nbsp;Samantha Halman,&nbsp;Susan Humphrey-Murto","doi":"10.1007/s10459-023-10302-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>First impressions can influence rater-based judgments but their contribution to rater bias is unclear. Research suggests raters can overcome first impressions in experimental exam contexts with explicit first impressions, but these findings may not generalize to a workplace context with implicit first impressions. The study had two aims. First, to assess if first impressions affect raters’ judgments when workplace performance changes. Second, whether explicitly stating these impressions affects subsequent ratings compared to implicitly-formed first impressions. Physician raters viewed six videos where learner performance either changed (Strong to Weak or Weak to Strong) or remained consistent. Raters were assigned two groups. Group one (n = 23, Explicit) made a first impression global rating (FIGR), then scored learners using the Mini-CEX. Group two (n = 22, Implicit) scored learners at the end of the video solely with the Mini-CEX. For the Explicit group, in the Strong to Weak condition, the FIGR (<i>M</i> = 5.94) was higher than the Mini-CEX Global rating (GR) (<i>M</i> = 3.02, <i>p</i> &lt; .001). In the Weak to Strong condition, the FIGR (<i>M</i> = 2.44) was lower than the Mini-CEX GR (<i>M</i> = 3.96 <i>p</i> &lt; .001). There was no difference between the FIGR and the Mini-CEX GR in the consistent condition (<i>M</i> = 6.61, <i>M</i> = 6.65 respectively, <i>p</i> = .84). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the conditions when comparing both groups’ Mini-CEX GR. Therefore, raters adjusted their judgments based on the learners’ performances. Furthermore, raters who made their first impressions explicit showed similar rater bias to raters who followed a more naturalistic process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 4","pages":"1155 - 1168"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implicit versus explicit first impressions in performance-based assessment: will raters overcome their first impressions when learner performance changes?\",\"authors\":\"Timothy J. Wood,&nbsp;Vijay J. Daniels,&nbsp;Debra Pugh,&nbsp;Claire Touchie,&nbsp;Samantha Halman,&nbsp;Susan Humphrey-Murto\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10459-023-10302-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>First impressions can influence rater-based judgments but their contribution to rater bias is unclear. Research suggests raters can overcome first impressions in experimental exam contexts with explicit first impressions, but these findings may not generalize to a workplace context with implicit first impressions. The study had two aims. First, to assess if first impressions affect raters’ judgments when workplace performance changes. Second, whether explicitly stating these impressions affects subsequent ratings compared to implicitly-formed first impressions. Physician raters viewed six videos where learner performance either changed (Strong to Weak or Weak to Strong) or remained consistent. Raters were assigned two groups. Group one (n = 23, Explicit) made a first impression global rating (FIGR), then scored learners using the Mini-CEX. Group two (n = 22, Implicit) scored learners at the end of the video solely with the Mini-CEX. For the Explicit group, in the Strong to Weak condition, the FIGR (<i>M</i> = 5.94) was higher than the Mini-CEX Global rating (GR) (<i>M</i> = 3.02, <i>p</i> &lt; .001). In the Weak to Strong condition, the FIGR (<i>M</i> = 2.44) was lower than the Mini-CEX GR (<i>M</i> = 3.96 <i>p</i> &lt; .001). There was no difference between the FIGR and the Mini-CEX GR in the consistent condition (<i>M</i> = 6.61, <i>M</i> = 6.65 respectively, <i>p</i> = .84). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the conditions when comparing both groups’ Mini-CEX GR. Therefore, raters adjusted their judgments based on the learners’ performances. Furthermore, raters who made their first impressions explicit showed similar rater bias to raters who followed a more naturalistic process.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"1155 - 1168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-023-10302-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-023-10302-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

第一印象可以影响基于评分的判断,但它们对评分者偏见的影响尚不清楚。研究表明,评分者可以用明确的第一印象来克服实验考试环境中的第一印象,但这些发现可能不适用于具有内隐第一印象的工作环境。这项研究有两个目的。首先,评估当工作场所绩效发生变化时,第一印象是否会影响评分者的判断。第二,与内隐形成的第一印象相比,明确陈述这些印象是否会影响随后的评分。医师评分者观看了六个视频,其中学习者的表现要么发生了变化(从强到弱或从弱到强),要么保持一致。评分者被分为两组。第一组(n = 23, Explicit)进行第一印象全球评分(FIGR),然后使用Mini-CEX对学习者进行评分。第二组(n = 22,隐式)在视频结束时仅使用Mini-CEX对学习者进行评分。对于显性组,在强到弱条件下,FIGR (M = 5.94)高于Mini-CEX Global rating (GR) (M = 3.02, p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Implicit versus explicit first impressions in performance-based assessment: will raters overcome their first impressions when learner performance changes?

First impressions can influence rater-based judgments but their contribution to rater bias is unclear. Research suggests raters can overcome first impressions in experimental exam contexts with explicit first impressions, but these findings may not generalize to a workplace context with implicit first impressions. The study had two aims. First, to assess if first impressions affect raters’ judgments when workplace performance changes. Second, whether explicitly stating these impressions affects subsequent ratings compared to implicitly-formed first impressions. Physician raters viewed six videos where learner performance either changed (Strong to Weak or Weak to Strong) or remained consistent. Raters were assigned two groups. Group one (n = 23, Explicit) made a first impression global rating (FIGR), then scored learners using the Mini-CEX. Group two (n = 22, Implicit) scored learners at the end of the video solely with the Mini-CEX. For the Explicit group, in the Strong to Weak condition, the FIGR (M = 5.94) was higher than the Mini-CEX Global rating (GR) (M = 3.02, p < .001). In the Weak to Strong condition, the FIGR (M = 2.44) was lower than the Mini-CEX GR (M = 3.96 p < .001). There was no difference between the FIGR and the Mini-CEX GR in the consistent condition (M = 6.61, M = 6.65 respectively, p = .84). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the conditions when comparing both groups’ Mini-CEX GR. Therefore, raters adjusted their judgments based on the learners’ performances. Furthermore, raters who made their first impressions explicit showed similar rater bias to raters who followed a more naturalistic process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
期刊最新文献
Social support and academic procrastination in health professions students: the serial mediating effect of intrinsic learning motivation and academic self-efficacy. To define or not to define: a commentary on 'The case for metacognitive reflection'. Team science in interdisciplinary health professions education research: a multi-institutional case study. Belonging in dual roles: exploring professional identity formation among disabled healthcare students and clinicians. Understanding simulation-based learning for health professions students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a scoping review.
×
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