The Effect of Salary Compensation for Time Spent Teaching in an Orthopaedic Residency Program: An Analysis of Teaching Performance Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although there has been a recent emphasis on standardized resident assessments within Accrediation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs, assessments of faculty teaching performance and effectiveness are less frequent. Our purpose was to compare the teaching performance of orthopaedic surgery faculty receiving compensation for time spent teaching with faculty without compensation. METHODS: For this prospective investigation, we collected anonymous resident reviews of 23 orthopaedic faculty within a rural, academic orthopaedic residency program over 2 academic years. Performance reviews of the faculty used a validated assessment of clinical teaching effectiveness with nine domains (faculty knowledge, organization, enthusiasm, rapport, involvement in learning experiences, feedback, clinical skill, accessibility, and overall effectiveness). A composite teaching effectiveness score was determined by adding each of the scores from the individual domains. We compared reviews for faculty members with and without compensation for time spent teaching. RESULTS: A total of 202 performance reviews for 23 orthopaedic faculty were analyzed. Most of the faculty were male (91%), and 61% received compensation for teaching. No demographic differences were observed between the two faculty groups. Notable differences between the groups were noted in three domains: enthusiasm, ability to establish rapport as well as direction, and feedback. Faculty compensated for teaching demonstrated a markedly higher composite teaching effectiveness score than those without compensation. DISCUSSION: These data suggest that orthopaedic faculty compensated for teaching responsibilities provide a better educational experience for resident trainees compared with faculty without compensation for teaching. Future studies should aim to assess varying compensation models for teaching responsibilities across different departments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".