Browse the corpus

Gender Bias in the Evaluation of Surgical Performance: Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to determine the influence of trainee gender on assessments of coronary anastomosis performance. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Understanding the impact of gender bias on the evaluation of trainees may enable us to identify and utilize assessment tools that are less susceptible to potential bias. METHODS: Cardiothoracic surgeons were randomized to review the video performance of trainees who were described by either male or female pronouns. All participants viewed the same video of a coronary anastomosis and were asked to grade technique using either a Checklist or Global Rating Scale (GRS). Effect of trainee gender on scores by respondent demographic was evaluated using regression analyses. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: 103 cardiothoracic surgeons completed the Checklist (trainee gender: male n=50, female n=53) and 112 completed the GRS (trainee gender: male n=56, female n=56). For the Checklist, male cardiothoracic surgeons who were in practice <10 years (p=0.036) and involved in training residents (p=0.049) were more likely to score male trainees higher than female trainees. The GRS demonstrated high inter-rater reliability across male and female trainees by years and scope of practice for the respondent (alpha >0.900) when compared to the Checklist assessment tool. CONCLUSIONS: Early career male surgeons may exhibit gender bias against women when evaluating trainee performance of coronary anastomoses. The GRS demonstrates higher inter-rater reliability and robustness against gender bias in the assessment of technical performance than the Checklist, and such scales should be emphasized in educational evaluations.