BACKGROUND: The psychometric properties of evaluations at academic meetings have not been well studied. PURPOSE: To explore the ceiling effect in the evaluation of quality of a professional meeting and whether a change in the scale labels would decrease the ceiling effect. METHODS: Cross-sectional study at two national meetings (2009-2010), attendees completed the evaluation on paper forms or online (5-point Likert scale). RESULTS: Of 1,064 evaluations, the mean session ratings was higher among respondents to the paper version in 2009 (4.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1 to 4.3) as compared to online responders in 2009 (3.0; 95% CI, 2.9 to 3.1) or online responders in 2010 (3.0; 95% CI, 2.9 to 3.1)(p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A ceiling effect was present in the evaluation of an academic meeting. A change in the evaluation scale labels decreased the ceiling effect and increased evaluation variability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vita et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: