Table 1.
Data from three instruments, comparing theoretical base, purpose, and comments
| Country and author | Theoretical base | Purpose | Setting | Scale descriptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| USA | Unspecified—to isolate and measure characteristics of “good physician;” reflects domains of ABIM recommendations for evaluating humanistic qualities | Shift from initially implied performance assessment3—potential feedback to practitioner became explicitly formative17 | Hospital general internists (228) | 9 point Likert-type scale; 11 items, four of which were respect, integrity, compassion, and responsibility; end descriptors—eg, “Does not accept responsibility... fully accepts responsibility” | Development pathway and validity unclear; reliability and feasibility confirmed in US hospital physicians—applicability to UK general practice setting uncertain; now adopted as part of “patient and peer assessment module” of ABIM's CPD programme17 as formative instrument |
| Ramsey et al 1996 | |||||
| Professional associate rating3,15-17 | |||||
| Canada | Broad principles of 360 degree or multisource feedback | Primarily formative and CPD; explicit aim for quality improvement by education rather than identification of “bad apples” | Mix of mainly family physicians (251) and clinical specialists (57) (35% rural) | 5 point Likert-type scale; 24 items: 1=among the worst, 2=bottom half, 3=average, 4=top half, 5=among the best | Development path, including focus group, described; subject sample included family practitioners; part of 360 degree multisource feedback approach; for PAQ, clinical competency factor dominant (73%); for PS and CAQ, humanistic-communication factor dominant (61% and 79.6%) |
| Hall et al 1999 | |||||
| Peer assessment questionnaire2,21,22 | |||||
| USA | Constructed to reflect ABIM domains | Primarily formative and CPD: 1. to provide feedback; 2. to enhance skills of self assessment and feedback | Hospital internal residency training (16) | 9 point Likert-type scale: superior (far exceeds expectations,) satisfactory (meets expectations), unsatisfactory (falls short) | Acknowledged by authors that unknown criteria used to rate—may vary between different rater groups—and need for specific training in evaluation will require mutually defined meanings of terms such as integrity |
| Thomas et al 1999 | |||||
| Peer review evaluation form19 |
ABIM=American Board of Internal Medicine; CAQ=co-worker assessment questionnaire; CPD=continuous professional development; PAQ=peer assessment questionnaire; PS=patient survey.