Incorporating Peer Assessments within a Clinical Practicum Course: Insights from a Clinical Faculty Initiative

Introduction: Peer assessments have been used within health professional programs to provide some degree of judgment of professional behavior and to facilitate feedback among peers. In an attempt to further support the clinical learning of our students, the clinical education team at the Odette Cancer Centre initiated a pilot to introduce peer assessments as a part of strategies for learning and engagement within laboratory sessions. The aim of our work was to retrospectively review peer assessments completed during these sessions in an attempt to identify professional behaviors, both positive and negative, and subsequently correlate the assessments with observed behaviors noted, both formally and anecdotally, within clinical faculty assessments. Further to this, our team attempted to explore student perceptions on the impact of peer assessments to their own learning. Methods: Students in the final year of a 3-year undergraduate medical radiation sciences program were asked to assess their peers during laboratory sessions using a modified version of an assessment tool previously known to the students, the Assessment of Readiness for Clinical tool. Students (N = 14) were required to evaluate each of their peers who participated in the same session and provide supporting comments for their rating. For each student, responses from peer assessors were anonymized and collated. Comments and numerical ratings on the peer assessments were compared. The student assessments were subsequently compared with similar measures extracted from faculty assessments. Students also participated in a debriefing session to provide feedback regarding the integration of these assessments within the learning sessions and the potential impact they had on their own professional behaviors. Results: The majority of students rated their peers in all criteria at a score of 2 (performed or surpassed expectations). There was some correlation between numerical ratings and comments written in the assessments. Comments on peer assessments were in concordance with observations extracted from previous assessments by clinical faculty and teachers for 71% of the students. Students expressed a favorable attitude toward the use of the peer assessments but did not find the numerical ratings useful and instead valued supporting constructive comments that cited specific examples for improvement. Conclusions: Peer assessments were found to be of some benefit to the learning of our students, particularly the anecdotal supporting comments that accompanied the ratings. However, their use must be accompanied by formalized training and guidelines to teachers and learners as well as a careful consideration of the tool chosen to ensure the most purposeful impact on behavior change.