Table 2.

Ratings of Importance and Quality of Information on Measures of Performance by Department Chairs and Promotion Committee Chairs

	Mean Importance*
Specific Measures of Evaluation	DC (N = 114)	PCC (N = 115)	Mean Quality, DC (N = 114)
Teaching activities
Teaching awards	6.3	6.0	4.5
Assessment by learners	5.8	5.3†	3.6
Peer/colleague evaluation	5.5	5.9†	3.3
Teaching portfolio	5.5	5.4	3.4
Curriculum development
Publication related to curriculum work	5.6	5.2	4.3
Presentation of curricula at a national meeting	5.5	4.5†	4.0
Clinical skills
Peer evaluation	5.5	5.8	3.2
Trainee evaluation	5.4	4.8†	3.4
Measurement of patient satisfaction	4.9	2.7†	2.7
Objective process and outcome measures	4.6	3.4†	2.2
Number of patients seen per month	3.9	2.3†	4.0
Income generated from clinical practice	3.3	1.5†	4.1
Role modeling and mentoring
Input from trainees	5.9	4.9†	3.7
Input from outside institution	4.6	5.4†	2.9
Research and other scholarly work
The journal in which the publication appeared	5.5	5.9†	4.6
Number of peer-reviewed publications	5.3	5.7	4.7
Presentation of research work at a national meeting	5.2	4.2†	4.2
External grant support	5.0	6.0†	4.6
Impact of publication	4.5	3.7†	3.8
Administrative abilities
Success in the administration of a training program	5.6	4.5†	4.0
Success in the administration of clinical services/practice	5.5	4.8†	3.7
Involvement in institutional committees	5.1	5.2	4.2
Personal qualities and reputation
Ethical conduct/behavior	6.3	5.7†	3.5
Leadership qualities	6.2	5.5†	3.8
Enthusiasm	5.9	4.2†	3.8
Invited lectures or presentations	5.4	5.6	4.1

DC, department chair; PCC, promotion committee chair

^*Importance scale: 1 = minimally important, 7= extremely important. Quality-of-information scale: 1 = extremely poor quality, 5 = extremely high quality.

^†P < .05 for the unpaired difference between the 114 department chairs and the 115 promotion committee chairs who responded.