Promotion criteria for clinician-educators in the United States and Canada

A survey of promotion committee chairpersons

Brent W. Beasley, Scott Wright, Joseph Cofrancesco, Stewart F. Babbott, Patricia A. Thomas, Eric B Bass

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Context.-Clinician-educators have concerns about their ability to be promoted and the criteria used by medical school promotion committees. Objective.-To discover the criteria and methods that medical school promotion committees use to make decisions about the promotion of clinician-educators. Methods.-In June 1996 we mailed a questionnaire to chairpersons of all medical school promotion committees in the United States and Canada. Results.-Of 142 schools surveyed, 115 (81%) responded; 45% of respondents had a clinician-educator promotion track. On a scale from 1 (minimally important) to 7 (extremely important), the mean importance ratings of aspects of clinician-educators' performance were the following: teaching skills (6.3), clinical skills (5.8), reentering (5.7), academic administration (5.3), developing educational programs (5.3), nonresearch scholarship (5.1), clinical research (4.8), service coordination (4.7), and education research (4.5). Methods to evaluate each aspect of performance were rated by respondents for importance and frequency of use. The 4 most important methods for evaluating teaching were awards, peer evaluation, learner evaluation, and teaching portfolio; 70% or more of schools used these frequently or always. The 4 most important methods of evaluating clinical skills were peer evaluation, awards, trainee evaluation, and objective measures, which were used frequently or always by 78%, 65%, 58%, and 29% of schools, respectively. Clinicion-educators were expected to have fewer peer-reviewed publications to be promoted than investigators (5.7 vs 10.6, P

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)723-728
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume278
Issue number9
StatePublished - Sep 3 1997

Fingerprint

Canada
Medical Schools
Teaching
Clinical Competence
Research
Publications
Research Personnel
Education
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Promotion criteria for clinician-educators in the United States and Canada : A survey of promotion committee chairpersons. / Beasley, Brent W.; Wright, Scott; Cofrancesco, Joseph; Babbott, Stewart F.; Thomas, Patricia A.; Bass, Eric B.

In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 278, No. 9, 03.09.1997, p. 723-728.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d7bd5df233de44c58b7ead9f8d17fa21,
title = "Promotion criteria for clinician-educators in the United States and Canada: A survey of promotion committee chairpersons",
abstract = "Context.-Clinician-educators have concerns about their ability to be promoted and the criteria used by medical school promotion committees. Objective.-To discover the criteria and methods that medical school promotion committees use to make decisions about the promotion of clinician-educators. Methods.-In June 1996 we mailed a questionnaire to chairpersons of all medical school promotion committees in the United States and Canada. Results.-Of 142 schools surveyed, 115 (81{\%}) responded; 45{\%} of respondents had a clinician-educator promotion track. On a scale from 1 (minimally important) to 7 (extremely important), the mean importance ratings of aspects of clinician-educators' performance were the following: teaching skills (6.3), clinical skills (5.8), reentering (5.7), academic administration (5.3), developing educational programs (5.3), nonresearch scholarship (5.1), clinical research (4.8), service coordination (4.7), and education research (4.5). Methods to evaluate each aspect of performance were rated by respondents for importance and frequency of use. The 4 most important methods for evaluating teaching were awards, peer evaluation, learner evaluation, and teaching portfolio; 70{\%} or more of schools used these frequently or always. The 4 most important methods of evaluating clinical skills were peer evaluation, awards, trainee evaluation, and objective measures, which were used frequently or always by 78{\%}, 65{\%}, 58{\%}, and 29{\%} of schools, respectively. Clinicion-educators were expected to have fewer peer-reviewed publications to be promoted than investigators (5.7 vs 10.6, P",
author = "Beasley, {Brent W.} and Scott Wright and Joseph Cofrancesco and Babbott, {Stewart F.} and Thomas, {Patricia A.} and Bass, {Eric B}",
year = "1997",
month = "9",
day = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "278",
pages = "723--728",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0098-7484",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Promotion criteria for clinician-educators in the United States and Canada

T2 - A survey of promotion committee chairpersons

AU - Beasley, Brent W.

AU - Wright, Scott

AU - Cofrancesco, Joseph

AU - Babbott, Stewart F.

AU - Thomas, Patricia A.

AU - Bass, Eric B

PY - 1997/9/3

Y1 - 1997/9/3

N2 - Context.-Clinician-educators have concerns about their ability to be promoted and the criteria used by medical school promotion committees. Objective.-To discover the criteria and methods that medical school promotion committees use to make decisions about the promotion of clinician-educators. Methods.-In June 1996 we mailed a questionnaire to chairpersons of all medical school promotion committees in the United States and Canada. Results.-Of 142 schools surveyed, 115 (81%) responded; 45% of respondents had a clinician-educator promotion track. On a scale from 1 (minimally important) to 7 (extremely important), the mean importance ratings of aspects of clinician-educators' performance were the following: teaching skills (6.3), clinical skills (5.8), reentering (5.7), academic administration (5.3), developing educational programs (5.3), nonresearch scholarship (5.1), clinical research (4.8), service coordination (4.7), and education research (4.5). Methods to evaluate each aspect of performance were rated by respondents for importance and frequency of use. The 4 most important methods for evaluating teaching were awards, peer evaluation, learner evaluation, and teaching portfolio; 70% or more of schools used these frequently or always. The 4 most important methods of evaluating clinical skills were peer evaluation, awards, trainee evaluation, and objective measures, which were used frequently or always by 78%, 65%, 58%, and 29% of schools, respectively. Clinicion-educators were expected to have fewer peer-reviewed publications to be promoted than investigators (5.7 vs 10.6, P

AB - Context.-Clinician-educators have concerns about their ability to be promoted and the criteria used by medical school promotion committees. Objective.-To discover the criteria and methods that medical school promotion committees use to make decisions about the promotion of clinician-educators. Methods.-In June 1996 we mailed a questionnaire to chairpersons of all medical school promotion committees in the United States and Canada. Results.-Of 142 schools surveyed, 115 (81%) responded; 45% of respondents had a clinician-educator promotion track. On a scale from 1 (minimally important) to 7 (extremely important), the mean importance ratings of aspects of clinician-educators' performance were the following: teaching skills (6.3), clinical skills (5.8), reentering (5.7), academic administration (5.3), developing educational programs (5.3), nonresearch scholarship (5.1), clinical research (4.8), service coordination (4.7), and education research (4.5). Methods to evaluate each aspect of performance were rated by respondents for importance and frequency of use. The 4 most important methods for evaluating teaching were awards, peer evaluation, learner evaluation, and teaching portfolio; 70% or more of schools used these frequently or always. The 4 most important methods of evaluating clinical skills were peer evaluation, awards, trainee evaluation, and objective measures, which were used frequently or always by 78%, 65%, 58%, and 29% of schools, respectively. Clinicion-educators were expected to have fewer peer-reviewed publications to be promoted than investigators (5.7 vs 10.6, P

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030884664&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030884664&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 278

SP - 723

EP - 728

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0098-7484

IS - 9

ER -