The resident view of professionalism behavior frequency in outstanding and "not outstanding" faculty

Kimberly Ephgrave, R. Brent Stansfield, Jerold Woodhead, W. John Sharp, Thomas George, John Lawrence

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Scopus citations


Background: Professionalism assessment has become necessary for all postgraduate training programs because it is now required for accreditation. To validate the novel items we generated to assess professionalism, we tested whether residents' ratings of faculty they judged as outstanding in professionalism would be distinguishable from those they judged as not outstanding. Methods: Educators from core clinical disciplines generated 20 items assessing professionalism behaviors on a 7-point frequency scale anchored by "always" and "never." Thirty-five surgical and pediatric residents completed the form twice, anonymously rating 1 faculty member they judged as outstanding and another they judged as not outstanding. Results: The residents produced 69 faculty ratings with means that differed significantly on all items between the outstanding and not-outstanding faculty. The form was highly unidimensional, with the primary factor's eigenvalue being 11.5 and Cronbach's alpha being 0.97. Groups differed most on items, ie, "listens well," "inspires trust," "answers questions directly," and "demonstrates respect for all.". Conclusion: The behaviors that best distinguished clinical faculty judged by residents as outstanding professionals were listening, trustworthiness, answering directly, and respect.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)701-705
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican journal of surgery
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 2006


  • Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies
  • Assessment
  • Evaluation
  • Pediatrics
  • Professionalism
  • Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'The resident view of professionalism behavior frequency in outstanding and "not outstanding" faculty'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this