243 - Gender-based linguistic analysis of a milestone-based faculty teaching assessment tool

Poster Number: 243
Publication Number: 243.418

Ann H. Allen, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States; Michelle M. Kelly, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Jessica Babal, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Kirstin Nackers, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Kristin Tiedt, University if Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Madeline Q. Kieren, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Jens Eickoff, University of Wisconin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States; Sarah Webber, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States

Background: Previous studies have shown that men faculty receive higher clinical teaching evaluation scores from residents than women. One hypothesis for this difference is that gender-biased language exists within pediatric faculty teaching assessments.

Objective: To determine whether stereotypically feminine language is used more frequently to describe lower level scores in a milestone-based faculty teaching assessment tool and masculine language is used more frequently to describe the highest level (top box) score. 

Design/Methods: We employed the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program to evaluate language used in a milestone-based, faculty teaching assessment in a pediatrics department. Adapted from the ACGME resident milestone-based assessment, this tool consisted of 11 sub-competency items that assessed faculty clinical teaching performance. Scores ranged from the lowest to the highest milestone level (level 1-5). Narrative anchors for each level were analyzed for stereotypic language in eight categories elicited from the literature: feminine (teaching, communal, grindstone, Heath female dictionary) vs. masculine (ability, standout, agentic, Heath male dictionary). Two-sample t-tests were used to compare the percentages of stereotypic language used to describe levels 1-4 vs. level 5 (top box) scores.

Results: Gender stereotypic language was present in milestone-based text used in this faculty assessment tool (Table 1). However, feminine language was not used more frequently to describe level 1-4 scores and masculine language was not used more frequently to describe level 5 (top box) scores (all categories p > 0.05). There was a trend toward significance in Heath dictionaries for use of stereotypical feminine language in levels 1-4 and masculine language in level 5 (top box; p=0.08 and p=0.10, respectively).Conclusion(s): While gender stereotypic language exists within the milestone-based text used in this faculty assessment tool, differences across milestone levels were not significant. Results should be interpreted with caution given the limited sample size and statistical power. Future studies are needed to determine if findings are replicated with larger samples and with other assessment tools. This could provide one area of intervention to improve gender inequities in academic pediatrics.
Percentage of assessment text containing feminine and masculine language