The method of paired comparisons was used to obtain rankings of 42 students in terms of their performance in emergency and screening clinic rotations. Although the comprehensive nature of the ranking might suggest a divergence of opinion regarding individual ranks, the composite ranking byfourfaculty members achieved a reliability of.86. This suggests that paired comparisons may provide a method of obtaining internally consistent assessments of students on more subtle aspects of clinical performance than those assessed by conventional multiple-choice tests or noncommittal written performance ratings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GUILFORD, J. P.
(1954) Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2.
HINDLEMAN, K. W.
and W. K. LONG (1973) "Method of decreasing subjective evaluation in preclinical restorative dentistry."J. of Dental Education37: 13-18.
3.
HOUPT, M. I.
and G. KRESS (1973) "Accuracy of measurement of clinical performance in dentistry."J. of Dental Education37: 34-36.
4.
MacKENZIE, R. S.
(1974) "Factors essential to the evaluation of clinical performance."J. of Dental Education38: 214-233.
5.
MILLER, G. A.
(1956) "The magic number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information."Psych. Rev.63: 81-97.
6.
SCHIFF, A. J.
, G. SALVENDY, C. ROOT, G. FERGUSON, and P. CUNNINGHAM (1975) "Objective evaluation of quality in cavity preparations."J. of Dental Education39: 92-96.
7.
SIMON, H.
(1974) "How big is a chunk?"Science183: 483-488.
