Gender Bias in the Evaluation of Surgical Performance: Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial

Objective: The study aims to determine the influence of trainee gender on assessments of coronary anastomosis performance. Summary of Background Data: Understanding the impact of gender bias on the evaluation of trainees may enable us to identify and utilize assessment tools that are less susceptible to potential bias. Methods: Cardiothoracic surgeons were randomized to review the video performance of trainees who were described by either male or female pronouns. All participants viewed the same video of a coronary anastomosis and were asked to grade technique using either a Checklist or Global Rating Scale (GRS). Effect of trainee gender on scores by respondent demographic was evaluated using regression analyses. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the Cronbach's alpha. Results: 103 cardiothoracic surgeons completed the Checklist (trainee gender: male n=50, female n=53) and 112 completed the GRS (trainee gender: male n=56, female n=56). For the Checklist, male cardiothoracic surgeons who were in practice <10 years (P = 0.036) and involved in training residents (P = 0.049) were more likely to score male trainees higher than female trainees. The GRS demonstrated high inter-rater reliability across male and female trainees by years and scope of practice for the respondent (alpha >0.900) when compared to the Checklist assessment tool. Conclusions: Early career male surgeons may exhibit gender bias against women when evaluating trainee performance of coronary anastomoses. The GRS demonstrates higher interrater reliability and robustness against gender bias in the assessment of technical performance than the Checklist, and such scales should be emphasized in educational evaluations.