Faculty Evaluation Systems - AAARAD

Faculty Evaluation Systems
Julia Kennedy Tussing
Stanford University
September 21, 2000

AAARRO Member Practices
• Surveyed AAARRO email distribution list
• 21 respondents
• Huge variation in practices
– From: no review, no increases, no bonus
– To: full peer committee review, formulaic
bonus plan and extensive data collection.

21 Respondents from:
--Virginia
--Texas
--New Mexico
--Duke
– Washington --Maryland
– Davis --Yale
– Johns Hopkins -- Missouri
– SUNY at Stonybrook --UCSF
– Med Univ of South Carolina --St Louis U
– Michigan State --Miami
– Wisconsin --Harvard
– Medical College of Wisc --Iowa
– Stanford

Review of Common Practices
• No system, salary increases are formulaic
(seniority or other criteria) (2)
• Chair discretion, no formal process (3)
• Formal process with fairly standardized
information gathered, culminating in
Section Chief or Chair meeting (14)
• Formal process with standardized
information gathered and evaluated by peer
group (2)

Criteria
• Almost all use clinical productivity,
research productivity, and teaching quality
or effort in the review.
• Half use some measure of administrative
effort or “citizenship”.
• Half use some kind of point system to
quantify conversion of activity to amount of
base or bonus.
• Only 6 used any goal-setting in the review
process.

Base vs. Bonus
• 11 of the respondents had a bonus plan. All
but one were based on individual rather than
group performance.
• 3 respondents had no flexibility in base
salary, and used the review system solely to
set a bonus.

School: Stanford 21 respondents
Degree of Structure High 2 zero, 8 low, 5 medium, 6 high
Performed by:
Ad Hoc Committee scores;
Chair sets salary/ bonus.
2 no review; 2 formula driven; 6 both Chair and
Chief or committee; 11 chair.
Faculty Self-Assessment Yes.
4 self-assessments, 17 none
Documentation
reviewed:
Teaching evaluations by residents, etc. 18 use teaching as a criterion
Research Self-evaluation, numbers 19 us research as a criterion
Patient Care RVUs & evaluations 17 use clinical productivity as a criterion
Administration X 12 use administration as a criterion
Goal-setting
Yes
Point system For bonus salary & bonus, ad hoc
or salary
committee score.
Bonus plan Yes; 1% to 30% of base salary. 12 have bonus plans
4 use formal goal-setting, 2 informal, 15 not at
all
9 use points for base, bonus or both; 11 do
not use any point system.
Range of salary
increases: 0% to 14%
Description:
Assemble folders with info on all
subjects; reviewed & scored by
Ad Hoc Committee; Chair sets
salary & bonus based on scores
& intangibles. Bonus is partly
algorithmic.

Faculty Evaluations at Stanford
• In 1989, the current Chair joined the
department, and began to build the current
system. Each year, additions or refinements
were made as it evolved.
• In 1998, the School of Medicine mandated a
written plan for each department for both
the evaluation and the bonus.

Stanford Review Process
• Assemble information into faculty folders
• Convene Ad Hoc Committee to review
folders
• Process Ad Hoc Committee Scores
• Run bonus algorithm
• Chair reviews scores and folder, sets bonus
and salary
• Chair meets with each faculty member,
reviews performance and sets goals for next
period

Faculty Folders
• Section Chief evaluation
• “Performance Profile” giving goals for the
period and observations on how well they
were met
• Self-assessment of activity in research,
teaching, and patient care in a standardized
“Activity Report”
• RVUs (rank in dept & section)

Folders, con’t.
• Resident, Fellow and clerkship teaching
evaluations
• Evaluations from students, post-docs and
graduate students (for research faculty)
• Attendance and participation in medical
school course (301A)
• Attendance at Faculty meetings

DR. XAVIER WRAY
MCL Line, Full Professor, 10 years in Department
Performance Profile Date: 11/15/98
Signatures:
Chair_____________________
Faculty_____________________
Clinical
Capability X Goals Measurement
Observations
Reputation
Productivity
• Acknowledged inside and
outside of SUSOM as an
expert in specific area of
medicine
• Building practice
# Invited
Major
Presentation
s
10%
Increase in
RVUs
4 Invitations: 1)
2)….3)…..4)
RVUs increased 9% from
previous fiscal year, from
3000 to 3270.

Ad Hoc Committee
• 5 member committee reviews every folder
and scores each faculty member from 1 to 5
in the following categories:
– Patient Care
– Teaching
– Research
– Administration
– Overall value to the Department

Scoring
• Ad Hoc scores are averaged for each
category and faculty are ranked according
to “Overall” scores
• Current scores are compared to the previous
year for improvement or decline; a 5-year
history is provided to the Chair
• Bonus algorithm run using Ad Hoc scores

Chair Review
• Add “Report Card” to folder for Chair
review
• Chair sets salaries based on folder, scores
and personal knowledge of performance
• Administrator runs bonus algorithm and
Chair sets discretionary bonus
• Chair meets with each of 43 faculty
members to review performance, set goals

NAME:
DEPARTMENT OF RADIOLOGY
FACULTY REPORT CARD
Comp Teaching RVUs Research
Section
Chief Eval:
Ad Hoc
Scores
FY '98 FY '99
%
Increase FY '00
%
Increase FY '01
%
Increase
Total Publications
Senior Author Pubs
Total Abstracts
Senior Author abstracts
RVUs (adj by clinical time) 4113 5808 41.21% -100.00%
RVU rank 2
Score: Clerkship 4 3.71 -7.25% -100.00%
Rank: Clerkship 27 of 29
Score: Resident 4.75 4.69 -1.26% -100.00%
Score: Fellow 4.58 5 9.17% -100.00%
Rank: Res/Fellow 9 of 39
Research 4.5
Patient Care 4
Teaching 4.5
Administration
Overall 4
Research 2.6 3.89 49.62% 4.01 3.08% -100.00%
Patient Care 4.18 4.48 7.18% 4.35 -2.90% -100.00%
Teaching 4.3 4.37 1.63% 4.41 0.92% -100.00%
Overall 3.73 4.08 9.38% 4.13 1.23% -100.00%
Percentile 0.26 0.49 88.46% 0.30 -38.78% -100.00%
Faculty meeting attendance 2 of 8 25.00%
Section Chief attendance
Base + Variable 105000 108675 3.50% 120000 10.42% -100.00%
Bonus 20000 30000 50.00% -100.00% #DIV/0!
TOTAL 125000 138675 10.94% 120000 -13.47% 0 -100.00%

Cons
• Very time-consuming administratively:
– Folders, Number crunching, Report cards,
Tracking performance profiles
• Makeup of Ad Hoc Committee can
influence scoring
• Chair required to meet with 43 faculty
• No formal method of tying evaluation to
compensation (except for bonus algorithm)

Pros
• Excellent historical data on performance
• Use of Committee ensures fairness, multiple
opinions
• Process understood by faculty
• Goal setting ties departmental mission to
performance
• Scoring method gives numerical result

Other Considerations
• The rigor with which you pursue
evaluations must depend upon:
– Administrative resources
– Chair commitment
– Faculty involvement
– Cultural limitations