OBJECTIVES:

Methods for evaluating student performance in clerkships traditionally suffer shortcomings, partly as a result of clerkship structure. The purpose of this study was to compare preceptors' and students' perceptions of student evaluation in block clerkships and longitudinal integratedclerkships (LICs).

METHODS:

From 2007 to 2009, preceptors who taught on both block clerkships and an LIC were surveyed on their perceptions of clerkshipevaluation. Year 3 students were surveyed on their perceptions of clerkship evaluation at the year end. Responses from preceptors who completed both block clerkship and LIC surveys were compared using paired-samples t-test; student responses were compared using independent-samples t-test.

RESULTS:

Overall, 66% (67/102) of block clerkship and 75% (77/102) of LIC preceptors responded; 44% of preceptors (45/102) completed both block and LIC surveys. In total, 62% (68/110) of block clerkship and 83% (19/23) of LIC students responded. Both preceptors and students favouredevaluation in the LIC on three factors (p ≤ 0.01): validity of evaluation process, quality of clinical skill evaluation, and willingness to provide constructive feedback.

CONCLUSIONS:

Preceptors and students perceived evaluation in an LIC more favourably than evaluation on block clerkships. For educators working to improve student evaluation, further examination of the LIC structure and evaluation processes that seem to enhance both formative assessment and summative evaluation may be useful to improve the quality of evaluation and feedback.