FORM HP-D II SUMMARY INFORMATION - Patient care services, instruction, scholarly productivity and – research, and institutional services Summary Ratings of Contributions by Department Chairperson: The purpose of this summary is to assess the to expectations across the functional candidate’s performance in relationship areas within the academic and broader community. For relevant sub-functions, indicate the faculty performance member’s by the most appropriate rating (from excellent to poor). Performance should be evaluated relative to placing an “X” under most appropriate comparison group and to assigned duties as reflected in percentage of time. For example, the most appropriate level of comparison for the function of productivity and is a national/international “scholarly research” comparison within the discipline. Performance Ratings Function Sub-Functions Excellent Very Avg. Below Poor Good Avg. of Time PATIENT CARE Patient Care Delivery SERVICES Consultation INSTRUCTION* Pre-Clinical Clinical Resident Post-Doctoral Advising Other SCHOLARLY Scholarly Productivity & PRODUCTIVITY & Research RESEARCH INSTITUTIONAL Committee Service SERVICES Administrative Service Other (specify) OTHER** OVERALL RATING * Include credit courses only, on and off campus. ** See Form HP-D-IVE, “Additional Reporting.” FORM HP-D II SUMMARY INFORMATION, continued – Summary Statements by Chairperson and Dean: Summary comments by Department Chairperson*. (Provide comments by function and across functions, citing strengths and weaknesses.) Summary statement by Dean*.
FORM HP-D – II SUMMARY INFORMATION - Patient care services, instruction, scholarly productivity and research, and institutional services Summary Ratings of Contributions by Department Chairperson: The purpose of this summary is to assess the candidate’s performance in relationship to expectations across the functional areas within the academic and broader community. For relevant sub-functions, indicate the faculty member’s performance by placing an “X” under the most appropriate rating (from excellent to poor). Performance should be evaluated relative to most appropriate comparison group and to assigned duties as reflected in percentage of time. For example, the most appropriate level of comparison for the function of “scholarly productivity and research” is a national/international comparison within the discipline. Performance Ratings Function Sub-Functions of Time Excellent Very Good Avg. Below Avg. Poor PATIENT CARE SERVICES Patient Care Delivery Consultation INSTRUCTION* Pre-Clinical Clinical Resident Post-Doctoral Advising Other SCHOLARLY PRODUCTIVITY & RESEARCH Scholarly Productivity & Research INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES Committee Service Administrative Service OTHER** Other (specify) OVERALL RATING * Include credit courses only, on and off campus. ** See Form HP-D-IVE, “Additional Reporting.” FORM HP-D – II SUMMARY INFORMATION, continued Summary Statements by Chairperson and Dean: Summary comments by Department Chairperson*. (Provide comments by function and across functions, citing strengths and weaknesses.) Summary statement by Dean*.
HP_FormD.docx