Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 3, 2026

Setup and Execution of the Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice Death Notification Curriculum
Published on: August 5, 2020
Evaluation of and Feedback for Academic Medicine Leaders: Developing and Implementing the Memorial Method
James Rourke1, Stephen Bornstein, Cathy Vardy
1J. Rourke is professor of family medicine and was dean of medicine 2004-2016, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8019-0294. S. Bornstein is professor of political science and medicine and director, Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. C. Vardy is vice dean of medicine and professor of pediatrics, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. D. Speed is a research officer, Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research, and term lecturer in psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. T. White is manager of finance, awards, and administration, Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. P. Corbett is manager of academic affairs, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Problem:
Giving and receiving honest and helpful feedback for leadership development is a common challenge in all types of organizations but particularly in academic medicine.
Approach:
At Memorial University of Newfoundland, in 2014, a consensus emerged to develop a new method for evaluating the leadership performance of the discipline chairs, dean, and vice dean, and to provide these leaders with the evaluation results to help them improve their performance. The leaders responsible for developing and implementing this method (called the Memorial Method) decided to use a survey to obtain faculty members' perceptions about their leader's performance. Beginning in October 2014, a portion of several regular meetings of the discipline chairs with the dean and vice dean was used to develop the survey, by first discussing the broad dimensions of leadership performance, then discussing these dimensions in more detail and drafting specific questions. The resulting survey included 44 quantitative questions addressing eight leadership dimensions. In March-April 2015, the survey was administered electronically to full-time faculty members on a confidential basis. The results were compiled and reported to each discipline chair and to the dean and vice dean.
Outcomes:
In total, 144/249 faculty responded to the survey (response rate: 58%). For the various dimensions, individual chairs' mean scores ranged from 2.82 to 4.70, and overall mean scores ranged from 3.57 to 4.24. Psychometric properties of the survey suggested it was both reliable and valid.
Next Steps:
The survey will be repeated, this time with part-time as well as full-time faculty included.
Related Concept Videos
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Methods of Documentation VII: EMR
Methods of Documentation II: POMR
Ethical Dilemmas II
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model
Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...

