C. Hilton et al., A RELATIVE-VALUE - BASED SYSTEM FOR CALCULATING FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY IN TEACHING, RESEARCH, ADMINISTRATION, AND PATIENT-CARE, Academic medicine, 72(9), 1997, pp. 787-793
Citations number
6
Categorie Soggetti
Medicine, General & Internal","Education, Scientific Disciplines","Medical Informatics
Purpose. To design and test a simple, easily modifiable system for cal
culating faculty productivity in teaching, research, administration, a
nd patient care in which all areas of endeavor would be recognized and
high productivity in one area would produce results similar to high p
roductivity in another at the Louisiana State University School of Med
icine in New Orleans. Method. A relative-value and time-based system w
as designed in 1996 so that similar efforts in the four areas would pr
oduce similar scores, and a profile reflecting the authors' estimates
of high productivity (''super faculty'') was developed for each area.
The activity profiles of 17 faculty members were used to test the syst
em. Results. ''Super-faculty'' scores in all areas were similar. The f
aculty members' mean scores were higher for teaching and research than
for administration and patient care, and all four mean scores were su
bstantially lower than the respective totals for the ''super faculty.'
' In each category the scores of those faculty members who scored abov
e the mean in that category were used to calculate new mean scores. Th
e mean scores for these faculty members were similar to those for the
''super faculty'' in teaching and research but were substantially lowe
r for administration and patient care. When the mean total score of th
e eight faculty members predicted to have total scores below the group
mean was compared with the mean total score of the nine faculty membe
rs predicted to have total scores above the group mean, the difference
was significant (p < .0001). For the former, every score in each cate
gory was below the mean, with the exception of one faculty member's sc
ore in one category. Of the latter, eight had higher scores in teachin
g and four had higher scores in teaching and research combined. Conclu
sion. This system provides a quantitative method for the equal recogni
tion of faculty productivity in a number of areas, and it may be usefu
l as a starting point for other academic units exploring similar issue
s.