Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Using peer review to distribute group work marks equitably between medical students
Creators: Cook, Alex R
Mikael Hartman 
Luo Nan 
Judy Sng Gek Khim 
Fong Ngan Phoon 
Lim Wei Yen 
Chen I-Cheng Mark 
Wong Mee Lian 
Natarajan Rajaraman 
Lee Jen-Mai, Jeannette 
Koh Choon Huat, Gerald 
Subject: Peer assessment
Group work mark
Individual contribution
Mathematical formulation
DOI: doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3885160.v1
Description: Although peer assessment has been used for evaluating performance of medical students and practicing doctors, it has not been studied as a method to distribute a common group work mark equitably to medical students working in large groups where tutors cannot observe all students constantly. Methods The authors developed and evaluated a mathematical formulation whereby a common group mark could be distributed among group members using peer assessment of individual contributions to group work, maintaining inter-group variation in group work scores. This was motivated by community health projects undertaken by large groups of year four medical students at the National University of Singapore, and the new and old formulations are presented via application to 263 students in seven groups of 36 to 40 during the academic year 2012/2013. Results This novel formulation produced a less clustered mark distribution that rewarded students who contributed more to their team. Although collusion among some members to form a voting alliance and ‘personal vendettas’ were potential problems, the former was not detected and the latter had little impact on the overall grade a student received when working in a large group. The majority of students thought the new formulation was fairer. Conclusions The new formulation is easy to implement and arguably awards grades more equitably in modules where group work is a major component.
Related Publications:
Citation: When using this data, please cite the original publication and also the dataset.
  • Cook, A. R., Hartman, M., Luo, N., Sng, J., Fong, N. P., Lim, W. Y., Chen, M. I. et al. Using peer review to distribute group work marks equitably between medical students, BMC Medical Education. BioMed Central. 2017;17;1;172.
  • Cook, Alex R, Mikael Hartman, Luo Nan, Judy Sng Gek Khim, Fong Ngan Phoon, Lim Wei Yen, Chen I-Cheng Mark, Wong Mee Lian, Natarajan Rajaraman, Lee Jen-Mai, Jeannette, Koh Choon Huat, Gerald (2017-09-20). Using peer review to distribute group work marks equitably between medical students. 1. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. [Dataset].
Appears in Collections:Staff Dataset

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess Settings 
12909_2017_987_MOESM1_ESM.xlsxWorked example in excel for the group featured in Fig. 3 The rawdata tab contains the raw score (out of six) awarded by each individual to each other individual (individuals’ names are replaced by majuscule Roman or Greek letters) in blue tinted cells. These are converted to a modified score (orange tinted cells) by scaling by the donor’s overall mean donated score (his or her ‘generosity’). The processed tab converts these to a final score out of 100 for each student.43.69 kBMicrosoft Excel XML


12909_2017_987_MOESM2_ESM.pdfEach page represents one student, whose names have been replaced by Roman or Greek capitals. The index student referred in each page is indicated by the down arrow on the top row of letters. The upper chart indicates the marks the index student gave to each peer (black or colored circles), together with the average points awarded to that peer (grey bars). The lower chart indicates the marks each peer gives the index student (circles) and the average mark the index student received. Note: these marks are the raw marks prior to scaling. If any mark is more than 1.5 marks away from average, this is indicated by coloring the circle (orange for less, red for much [2.5] less, light blue for more, dark blue for much [2.5] more), increasing the shading on the bar, and adding an arrow. By maximizing the graph on screen and running through each page as a slide show, faculty can quickly assess for the presence of collusion between students.140.32 kBAdobe PDF


12909_2017_987_MOESM3_ESM.pdfCHP 2014 Module Feedback Form. Form used to solicit feedback on the scoring system.13.5 kBAdobe PDF



Page view(s)

checked on May 25, 2023


checked on May 25, 2023

Google ScholarTM



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.