| Coding Category | 2016 | 2017 | Total % | p-value *<0.05 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peer | Judge | Peer | Judge | |||
| A=Preparation/Confidence/Passion | 77 | 27 | 90 | 7 | 6.5% | 0.71 |
| B=Presentation Skills | 295 | 101 | 402 | 24 | 26.4 | 0.45 |
| C=Visual Presentation | 157 | 57 | 362 | 25 | 19.3 | 0.08 |
| D=Knowledge of Topic | 33 | 21 | 46 | 3 | 3.3 | *0.04 |
| E=Content | 242 | 66 | 556 | 57 | 29.6 | *0.01 |
| F=Study Design | 4 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 0.6 | *<0.01 |
| G=Progress on Project | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.25 |
| H=Interest/Relevance to Field | 44 | 11 | 43 | 6 | 3.3 | 0.92 |
| I=Answering Questions | 28 | 15 | 62 | 10 | 3.7 | 0.09 |
| NM=No Meat | 55 | 23 | 110 | 35 | 7.2 | *<0.01 |
| Total | 937 | 328 | 1,680 | 170 | 100.0 | |
| Total Comments | 1,265 | 1,850 | ||||
| 3,115 | ||||||
Note: Peer and judge feedback comments are shown with the total percentages combined. *p-values compare peer and judge total comments over two years, where judges were statistically more likely than medical student peers to comment on Knowledge of Topic (D), Study Design (F), and to make comments described as “No Meat” or too general (NM); and peers were more likely than judges to comment on Content (E).
Int J Med Educ. 2020; 11:222-229; doi: 10.5116/ijme.5f64.690b