SpringerLink
Log in

General surgery resident motivation: the effect of formative compared to summative simulated skills assessments

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Global Surgical Education - Journal of the Association for Surgical Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Surgical residents undergo numerous summative and formative assessments throughout training. However, it is unknown how perceptions of assessment intention and use impact trainee motivation and subsequent performance outcomes. We use goal orientation theory to explore how resident perception of assessment type influences motivation levels.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of general surgery residents’ motivation, with residents completing an electronic survey before a simulated surgical skills assessment. Items included resident perception of assessment type (formative vs summative), motivation scores (average of responses, 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), and post-graduate year (PGY). Mastery and performance motivation scores were compared based on perceived assessment type and PGY level.

Results

Sixty of 63 residents (RR = 95%) completed the survey. Residents who felt the assessment was formative had significantly higher mastery motivation scores than those who felt it was summative (mean = 4.1 vs 3.4, p = 0.006). Motivation scores varied significantly between residents of differing PGY levels, specific to mastery motivation (p < 0.001) with no differences seen in performance motivation. PGY1 and PGY3 residents had significantly higher mean mastery motivation scores than PGY5 residents (PGY1: 4.4, PGY3: 4.0 vs PGY5: 2.8, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Trainees who believe they are completing a skills assessment with the goal of skill development are more likely to indicate they are motivated to master the skill. Further, we demonstrate that more junior trainees exhibit higher mastery motivation than chief residents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data sets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Cook DA, Artino AR Jr. Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories. Med Educ. 2016;50(10):997–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Harackiewicz JM, Barron KE, Pintrich PR, Elliot AJ, Thrash TM. Revision of achievement goal theory: necessary and illuminating. J Educ Psychol. 2002;94(3):638–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Elliot AJ, McGregor HA. A 2x2 achievement goal framework. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;80(3):501–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cook DA, Castillo RM, Gas B, Artino AR Jr. Measuring achievement goal motivation, mindsets and cognitive load: validation of three instruments’ scores. Med Educ. 2017;51(10):1061–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wolters CA. Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. J Educ Psychol. 2004;96:236–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. King RB, McInerney DM. Do goals lead to outcomes or can it be the other way around?: causal ordering of mastery goals, metacognitive strategies, and achievement. Br J Educ Psychol. 2016;86(2):296–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Huang C. Discriminant and criterion-related validity of achievement goals in predicting academic achievement: a meta-analysis. J Educ Psychol. 2012;104(1):48–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Payne SC, Youngcourt SS, Beaubien JM. A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(1):128–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Button SB, Mathieu JE, Zajac DM. Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;67(1):26–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ames C, Ames R, Felker DW. Effects of competitive reward structure and valence of outcome on children’s achievement attributions. J Educ Psychol. 1977;69(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor MS, Campbell JA. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J Appl Psychol. 1979;64(4):349–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boud D. Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary? In: Knight P, editor. Assessment for learning in higher education. 1st ed. London: Kogan Page; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hoffman RL, Hudak-Rosander C, Datta J, et al. Goal orientation in surgical residents: a study of the motivation behind learning. J Surg Res. 2014;190(2):451–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gardner AK, Diesen DL, Hogg D, Huerta S. The impact of goal setting and goal orientation on performance during a clerkship surgical skills training program. Am J Surg. 2016;211(2):321–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gardner AK, Jabbour IJ, Williams BH, Huerta S. Different goals, different pathways: the role of metacognition and task engagement in surgical skill acquisition. J Surg Educ. 2016;73(1):61–5.

  16. Lewin K. Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1936.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Breaux DMTP, Munyon WA, Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR. Politics as a moderator of the accountability–job satisfaction relationship: evidence across three studies. J Manag. 2009;35:307–26.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Elliot AJ, Murayama K. On the measurement of achievement goals: critique, illustration, and application. J Educ Psychol. 2008;100:613–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cook DA, Castillo RM, Gas B, Artino AR Jr. Measuring achievement goal motivation, mindsets and cognitive load: validation of three instruments’ scores. Med Educ. 2017;51(10):1061–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cook DA, Gas BL, Artino AR Jr. Measuring mindsets and achievement goal motivation: a validation study of three instruments. Acad Med. 2018;93(9):1391–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cauley KM, McMillan JH. Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement. Clearing House. 2010;83(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shepard LA, Penuel WR. Using learning and motivation theories to coherently link formative assessment, grading practices, and large-scale assessment. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2018;37(1):21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Meece JL, Anderman EM, Anderman LH. Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gillet N, Vallerand R, Lafreniere M, Marc-Andre K. Intrinsic and extrinsic school motivation as a function of age: the mediating role of autonomy support. Soc Psychol Educ. 2012;15:77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lepper MR, Corpus JH, Iyengar SS. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: age differences and academic correlates. J Educ Psychol. 2005;97(2):184–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Stoa R, Chu TL. An argument for implementing and testing novelty in the classroom. Scholarship Teach Learn Psychol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mayo Clinic Department of Surgery, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA

    Sarah Lund

  2. Mayo Clinic Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA

    Jonathan D. D’Angelo

  3. Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Aimee K. Gardner

  4. Mayo Clinic Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA

    John Stulak

  5. Mayo Clinic Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and General Surgery, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA

    Mariela Rivera

Authors
  1. Sarah Lund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan D. D’Angelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aimee K. Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Stulak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mariela Rivera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Lund.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lund, S., D’Angelo, J.D., Gardner, A.K. et al. General surgery resident motivation: the effect of formative compared to summative simulated skills assessments. Global Surg Educ 1, 55 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44186-022-00062-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44186-022-00062-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation