Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Feb;217(2):306-313.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.09.029. Epub 2018 Sep 29.

Assessing gender bias in qualitative evaluations of surgical residents

Katherine M Gerull  1 , Maren Loe  1 , Kristen Seiler  1 , Jared McAllister  1 , Arghavan Salles  2
Affiliations

Assessing gender bias in qualitative evaluations of surgical residents

Katherine M Gerull et al. Am J Surg. 2019 Feb.

Abstract

Background: There are notable disparities in the training, recruitment, promotion, and evaluation of men and women in surgery. The qualitative assessment of surgical residents may be implicitly gender biased.

Methods: We used inductive analysis to identify themes in written evaluations of residents. We also performed a content analysis of words fitting previously defined communal, grindstone, ability, and standout categories.

Results: Differences in themes that emerged from evaluations of male and female residents were notable regarding overall performance, references to the future, professional competency, job domains, disposition and humanism, and overall tone of evaluations. Comments about men were more positive than those about women, and evaluations of men included more standout words.

Conclusions: The more positive evaluations of men may handicap women if they are seen as less likely to perform well based on these evaluations. These differences suggest that implicit bias may play a role in the qualitative evaluation of surgical residents.

Keywords: Evaluation; Gender bias; Performance review; Qualitative; Residency.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Codes grouped into themes from inductive thematic analysis. The numbers represent the number of times a code was used in the dataset.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Conceptual model of how people write differently about men and women surgical trainees.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Axelson RD, Solow CM, Ferguson KJ, Cohen MB. Assessing Implicit Gender Bias in Medical Student Performance Evaluations. Eval Health Prof. 33(3):365–385. doi:10.1177/0163278710375097. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Thackeray EW, Halvorsen AJ, Ficalora RD, Engstler GJ, McDonald FS, Oxentenko AS. The effects of gender and age on evaluation of trainees and faculty in gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(11):1610–1614. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.139. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rand VE, Hudes ES, Browner WS, Wachter RM, Avins AL. Effect of evaluator and resident gender on the American Board of Internal Medicine evaluation scores. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(10):670–674. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00202.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Choo EK. Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t: Bias in Evaluations of Female Resident Physicians. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(5):586–587. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-17-00557.1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mueller AS, Jenkins TM, Osborne M, Dayal A, O’Connor DM, Arora VM. Gender Differences in Attending Physicians’ Feedback to Residents: A Qualitative Analysis. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(5):577–585. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-17-00126.1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types