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, Vijay J. Daniels, Debra Pugh, Claire Touchie, Samantha Halman, 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> < .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> < .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, Vijay J. Daniels, Debra Pugh, Claire Touchie, Samantha Halman, 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> < .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> < .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
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.
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.