Evaluation Anonymity & Re-identification

DGSOM Policy Regarding Evaluation Anonymity

The David Geffen School of Medicine collects and distributes student evaluations of teaching (SETs) as a tool for assessing and continuously improving the quality of instruction. Our general practice is to maintain the anonymity of evaluations to create an environment where students feel comfortable providing honest and constructive feedback about their instructors and courses. However, in rare cases, student identity may be inferred indirectly or uncovered directly to safeguard students and other members of our academic community. These circumstances are outlined below:

Indirect Identification

The student evaluation system is designed to minimize the likelihood that a student’s identity can be determined by faculty or administration. However, there are cases where the identity of students providing evaluations might be inferred indirectly:

Low Student-to-Instructor or Student-to-Site Ratios: Students may be assigned to clinical sites where there are only a handful of other students. Similarly, students may be paired with instructors who are supervising only a few other students during that time period. In these types of situations, the identity of the author of an anonymous evaluation may be inferred (e.g., through details a student provides in their feedback, through the student’s writing style). We take precautions to minimize the possibility that this type of reidentification might occur as well as to minimize any possible repercussions if it does. Specifically, we apply minimum thresholds for the disaggregation of data in reports. For example, if a release threshold for a given course is set at a minimum of three evaluations, course leaders and instructors cannot “cut” the report by any parameter that has any less than three responses (e.g., a specific start date). Furthermore, in courses where the provision of assessments involves the direct adjudication of student performance by instructors, we apply a grade-release contingency such that evaluations are not released until a student’s final grade has been submitted.

Synchronous Feedback Sessions: We occasionally run focus groups or lunchtime feedback sessions where students can provide feedback directly to course – or curricular – leadership. These forms of evaluation are inherently identifiable to all session participants. However, all minutes that come from these sessions are scrubbed of student identifiers. Furthermore, if a recording of the session is made for transcription, these recordings are permanently deleted after the transcript has been verified. Transcripts are scrubbed of student identifiers before distribution. 

Voluntary Identification: Students may elect to identify themselves in their evaluations (e.g., by leaving their name or email address at the end of a comment they have written). Motivations for self-identification vary but may include a student who 1) Seeks follow-up on the ideas they provided in an evaluation, 2) Feels that learning to provide constructive feedback is a part of their professional development, and uses their identity as a way to signal the earnestness of their feedback, or 3) Sees the evaluation process as an opportunity to build a relationship with their instructors or express personal appreciation. In these cases, the identifiers are not removed from evaluation reports as we want to honor a student’s preference to make themselves known to stakeholders who may be reading the evaluations.

Direct Identification

By default, our systems keep evaluations anonymous. However, we can work with our technical teams and vendor partners to re-identify evaluations on a limited, on-demand basis. This is an effortful process, by design. In rare situations, the school may go through a set of procedures to directly re-identify evaluations to ensure the safety and well-being of all members of the DGSOM community.

Egregiously Unprofessional Comments: Providing anonymous feedback is a privilege, and DGSOM students are expected to behave professionally when writing evaluations. DGSOM expects student comments about areas for improvement, particularly those relating to members of the faculty and staff, to use respectful and constructive language. In cases where a student evaluation contains comments that are egregiously unprofessional, harmful, hateful, violate DGSOM’s Professionalism Policy, or the UCLA Student Code of Conduct, anonymity may be waived, and the student may be subject to disciplinary action consistent with DGSOM’s Professionalism Policy. This would be an extreme and rare circumstance.

Process for Re-identifying Egregiously Unprofessional Comments

  1. If a student’s comment in an evaluation is brought to the attention of the Educational Measurement Unit as egregiously unprofessional or otherwise beyond the norm of decency and respectful communication, a group of five individuals will be convened to discuss whether the comment should be re-identified: 1) the Director of Program Evaluation, 2) the Associate Dean of Curricular Affairs, 3) the Associate Dean of Student Affairs, and 4) the two student MEC representatives representing the course from which the comment came. If, after discussion with the student MEC members, two or more of the Dean’s Office representatives believe that the comment represents a significant breach of professionalism, the comment will be re-identified. 
  2. The Educational Measurement Unit will work with the technical manager (e.g., vendor, UCLA Health IT) of the relevant evaluation system to re-identify the author of the comment. The minimal number of necessary personnel will be involved and no other comments will be re-identified from that author nor any other students. 
  3. The student’s name will be provided only to the Associate Dean for Student Affairs for follow-up. The Associate Dean for Student Affairs will use their discretion in applying the procedures outlined in DGSOM’s Professionalism Policy or reporting the conduct to other responsible individuals, such as leaders in the University Civil Rights Office. Information obtained through re-identification will be handled as confidentially as possible and used solely for addressing the specific incident.

Threats of Harm: If a student evaluation contains an overt or covert expression of potential self-harm, harm to others or property, or otherwise causes concern for the well-being of the student or community, anonymity may be waived to address the potential risk and ensure safety. When a threat of harm to self or others is identified, action will be taken to ensure the safety of all individuals involved. 

Process For Re-identifying Comments Containing Threats of Harm

  1. If a student’s comment in an evaluation is brought to the attention of the Educational Measurement Unit as containing a threat of harm to self, others, or property, a group of three individuals will be convened to adjudicate whether the comment should be re-identified: 1) The Director of Program Evaluation, 2) The Associate Dean of Curricular Affairs, and 3) The Associate Dean of Student Affairs. If two or more of these individuals believe that the comment represents a threat to the safety and well-being of the student or other members of the community, the comment will be re-identified. 
  2. The Educational Measurement Unit will work with the technical manager (e.g., vendor, UCLA Health IT) of the relevant evaluation system to re-identify the comment. The minimal number of necessary personnel will be involved and no other comments will be re-identified from that author nor any other students. 
  3. The student’s name will be provided only to the Associate Dean for Student Affairs for follow-up. The Associate Dean for Student Affairs will use their discretion to initiate appropriate action based on the nature of the comment(s) (e.g., reach out to the student directly, notify appropriate emergency personnel, reach out to the Behavioral Wellness Center). Information obtained through re-identification will be handled as confidentially as possible and used solely for addressing the specific incident.

 

Approved by the MEC, July 2024