Questioning Style and Pimping in Clinical Education: A Quantitative Score Derived from a Survey of Internal Medicine Teaching Faculty

John W. McEvoy, John H. Shatzer, Sanjay Virendra Desai, Scott Wright

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Construct: Pimping is a controversial pedagogical technique in medicine, and there is a tension between pimping being considered as “value adding” in some circumstances versus always unacceptable. Consequently, faculty differ in their attitudes toward pimping, and such differences may be measurable and used to inform future research regarding the impact of pimping on learner outcomes. Background: Despite renewed attention in medical education on creating a supportive learning environment, there is a dearth of prior research on pimping. We sought to characterize faculty who are more aggressive in their questioning style (i.e., those with a “pimper” phenotype) from those who are less threatening. Approach: This study was conducted between December 2015 and September 2016 at Johns Hopkins University. We created a 13-item questionnaire assessing faculty perceptions on pimping as a pedagogical technique. We surveyed all medicine faculty (n = 150) who had attended on inpatient teaching services at two university-affiliated hospitals over the prior 2 years. Then, using responses to the faculty survey, we developed a numeric “pimping score” designed to characterize faculty into “pimper” (those with scores in the upper quartile of the range) and “nonpimper” phenotypes. Results: The response rate was 84%. Although almost half of the faculty reported that being pimped helped them in their own learning (45%), fewer reported that pimping was effective in their own teaching practice (20%). The pimping score was normally distributed across a range of 13–42, with a mean of 24 and a 75th percentile cutoff of 28 or greater. Younger faculty, male participants, specialists, and those reporting lower quality of life had higher pimping score values, all p <.05. Faculty who openly endorsed favorable views about the educational value of pimping had sevenfold higher odds of being characterized as “pimpers” using our numeric pimping score (p ≤.001). Conclusions: The establishment of a quantitative pimping score may have relevance for training programs concerned about the learning environment in clinical settings and may inform future research on the impact of pimping on learning outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalTeaching and Learning in Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

prostitution
medicine
Teaching
education
learning environment
Values
teaching practice
learning
training program
quality of life

Keywords

  • bedside teaching
  • faculty traits
  • pimping

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

@article{1c48a9e5cc764c3cb34a60dbaa3e1a10,
title = "Questioning Style and Pimping in Clinical Education: A Quantitative Score Derived from a Survey of Internal Medicine Teaching Faculty",
abstract = "Construct: Pimping is a controversial pedagogical technique in medicine, and there is a tension between pimping being considered as “value adding” in some circumstances versus always unacceptable. Consequently, faculty differ in their attitudes toward pimping, and such differences may be measurable and used to inform future research regarding the impact of pimping on learner outcomes. Background: Despite renewed attention in medical education on creating a supportive learning environment, there is a dearth of prior research on pimping. We sought to characterize faculty who are more aggressive in their questioning style (i.e., those with a “pimper” phenotype) from those who are less threatening. Approach: This study was conducted between December 2015 and September 2016 at Johns Hopkins University. We created a 13-item questionnaire assessing faculty perceptions on pimping as a pedagogical technique. We surveyed all medicine faculty (n = 150) who had attended on inpatient teaching services at two university-affiliated hospitals over the prior 2 years. Then, using responses to the faculty survey, we developed a numeric “pimping score” designed to characterize faculty into “pimper” (those with scores in the upper quartile of the range) and “nonpimper” phenotypes. Results: The response rate was 84{\%}. Although almost half of the faculty reported that being pimped helped them in their own learning (45{\%}), fewer reported that pimping was effective in their own teaching practice (20{\%}). The pimping score was normally distributed across a range of 13–42, with a mean of 24 and a 75th percentile cutoff of 28 or greater. Younger faculty, male participants, specialists, and those reporting lower quality of life had higher pimping score values, all p <.05. Faculty who openly endorsed favorable views about the educational value of pimping had sevenfold higher odds of being characterized as “pimpers” using our numeric pimping score (p ≤.001). Conclusions: The establishment of a quantitative pimping score may have relevance for training programs concerned about the learning environment in clinical settings and may inform future research on the impact of pimping on learning outcomes.",
keywords = "bedside teaching, faculty traits, pimping",
author = "McEvoy, {John W.} and Shatzer, {John H.} and Desai, {Sanjay Virendra} and Scott Wright",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/10401334.2018.1481752",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Teaching and Learning in Medicine",
issn = "1040-1334",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Questioning Style and Pimping in Clinical Education

T2 - A Quantitative Score Derived from a Survey of Internal Medicine Teaching Faculty

AU - McEvoy, John W.

AU - Shatzer, John H.

AU - Desai, Sanjay Virendra

AU - Wright, Scott

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Construct: Pimping is a controversial pedagogical technique in medicine, and there is a tension between pimping being considered as “value adding” in some circumstances versus always unacceptable. Consequently, faculty differ in their attitudes toward pimping, and such differences may be measurable and used to inform future research regarding the impact of pimping on learner outcomes. Background: Despite renewed attention in medical education on creating a supportive learning environment, there is a dearth of prior research on pimping. We sought to characterize faculty who are more aggressive in their questioning style (i.e., those with a “pimper” phenotype) from those who are less threatening. Approach: This study was conducted between December 2015 and September 2016 at Johns Hopkins University. We created a 13-item questionnaire assessing faculty perceptions on pimping as a pedagogical technique. We surveyed all medicine faculty (n = 150) who had attended on inpatient teaching services at two university-affiliated hospitals over the prior 2 years. Then, using responses to the faculty survey, we developed a numeric “pimping score” designed to characterize faculty into “pimper” (those with scores in the upper quartile of the range) and “nonpimper” phenotypes. Results: The response rate was 84%. Although almost half of the faculty reported that being pimped helped them in their own learning (45%), fewer reported that pimping was effective in their own teaching practice (20%). The pimping score was normally distributed across a range of 13–42, with a mean of 24 and a 75th percentile cutoff of 28 or greater. Younger faculty, male participants, specialists, and those reporting lower quality of life had higher pimping score values, all p <.05. Faculty who openly endorsed favorable views about the educational value of pimping had sevenfold higher odds of being characterized as “pimpers” using our numeric pimping score (p ≤.001). Conclusions: The establishment of a quantitative pimping score may have relevance for training programs concerned about the learning environment in clinical settings and may inform future research on the impact of pimping on learning outcomes.

AB - Construct: Pimping is a controversial pedagogical technique in medicine, and there is a tension between pimping being considered as “value adding” in some circumstances versus always unacceptable. Consequently, faculty differ in their attitudes toward pimping, and such differences may be measurable and used to inform future research regarding the impact of pimping on learner outcomes. Background: Despite renewed attention in medical education on creating a supportive learning environment, there is a dearth of prior research on pimping. We sought to characterize faculty who are more aggressive in their questioning style (i.e., those with a “pimper” phenotype) from those who are less threatening. Approach: This study was conducted between December 2015 and September 2016 at Johns Hopkins University. We created a 13-item questionnaire assessing faculty perceptions on pimping as a pedagogical technique. We surveyed all medicine faculty (n = 150) who had attended on inpatient teaching services at two university-affiliated hospitals over the prior 2 years. Then, using responses to the faculty survey, we developed a numeric “pimping score” designed to characterize faculty into “pimper” (those with scores in the upper quartile of the range) and “nonpimper” phenotypes. Results: The response rate was 84%. Although almost half of the faculty reported that being pimped helped them in their own learning (45%), fewer reported that pimping was effective in their own teaching practice (20%). The pimping score was normally distributed across a range of 13–42, with a mean of 24 and a 75th percentile cutoff of 28 or greater. Younger faculty, male participants, specialists, and those reporting lower quality of life had higher pimping score values, all p <.05. Faculty who openly endorsed favorable views about the educational value of pimping had sevenfold higher odds of being characterized as “pimpers” using our numeric pimping score (p ≤.001). Conclusions: The establishment of a quantitative pimping score may have relevance for training programs concerned about the learning environment in clinical settings and may inform future research on the impact of pimping on learning outcomes.

KW - bedside teaching

KW - faculty traits

KW - pimping

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054364114&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054364114&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10401334.2018.1481752

DO - 10.1080/10401334.2018.1481752

M3 - Article

C2 - 30273071

AN - SCOPUS:85054364114

JO - Teaching and Learning in Medicine

JF - Teaching and Learning in Medicine

SN - 1040-1334

ER -