Abstract
[Purpose] To create a clinical training achievement evaluation form, adopting a rubric scoring system, and clarify its characteristics through comparison with a conventional evaluation form. [Subjects and Methods] We asked clinical supervisors of 25 facilities to use both the new and conventional evaluation forms for comparison, and respond to a related questionnaire. The results of evaluation by the supervisors on a 4-point basis: <Excellent>, <Good>, <Fair>, and <Poor> were scored 3, 2, 1, and 0, respectively, to compare total scores for the 3 domains of evaluation: <adequacy/attitudes>, <knowledge>, and <skills>. [Results] Responses were obtained from 21 supervisors. Although coefficients-α for some items were low, there were significant correlations among scores for the domains. In the questionnaire survey, the respondents’ opinions about the new evaluation form were generally affirmative, as it facilitated scoring. [Conclusion] The scores did not markedly vary between the new rubric scoring-based and conventional evaluation forms, and the supervisors tended to support the former’s usability for scoring. Based on this, the new evaluation form may be applicable, although each item has yet to be carefully examined.
