Objective: As multi-instructor courses become more commonplace, instructor surveys for individual courses become lengthier. Studies suggest respondent fatigue can become a problem in these evaluations with a change in assessment as a function of survey length. This study investigated the relationship between individual instructor scores and instructor order using on-line evaluations over a period of four years, for four pharmaceutics courses with 23 different instructors. Methods: Instructor evaluations from four courses offered from 2005 to 2008 with three or more faculty members were examined. Each on-line survey had five introductory course questions followed by ten identical instructor specific questions. Thus for any on-line survey there were between instructor specific questions. The percent response and mean score for each question as a function of instructor order were tested to assess whether student’s became fatigued during completion of long evaluations. Fatigue was measured by the decreased percent response, changes in mean score and changes in the variance of the mean scores. Results: As expected there were significant differences among faculty members in mean scores indicating differences in teaching abilities. However, evaluation order does not appear to play a role as there were no statistically significant differences in the percent response, mean or variance of the scores. Implications: The data suggests for instructor evaluations of moderate length, individual faculty scores are not affected by their order in on-line evaluations. We observed no respondent fatigue. STUDENT COURSE EVALUATIONS WITH MULTIPLE INSTRUCTORS. DOES RESPONDENT FATIGUE AFFECT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATIONS? Sara E. Renzi, Daniel A. Brazeau, Gayle A. Brazeau, Jennifer M. Hess, and Jason N. Adsit School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Amherst NY  Instructor evaluations may be adversely effected depending on their order on evaluation forms, perhaps caused by survey fatigue with long on-line surveys. Specifically, overall faculty evaluations scores may decrease as a function of faculty order during on-line surveys.  Survey fatigue as measured by the percent of students responding and response variance will decease with the length of the on-line survey. AbstractAbstract BackgroundBackground HypothesisHypothesis MethodsMethods Results - Instructor Scores and Response Rates Discussion and Conclusions  Four courses (see below) were used between the years of Each course had three or more faculty lecturing in the course. Each evaluation had five course based questions and ten instructor questions for each instructor.  Evaluations had minimally 30 instructor questions with some evaluations having as many as 70 instructor based questions for a total of questions per course.  Statistical differences among instructor scores and percent response were calculated using ANOVA with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Regression analysis was use to assess the relationship between instructor scores and order on the evaluation forms.  On-line faculty and course evaluations have become standard for every course and instructor in most institutions with the demand caused by providing feedback to faculty members and for assessment in our programs.  The process of on-line evaluations can be lengthy for respondents given there may multiple instructors each being evaluated using the same sets of questions and a course survey, there may be many separate course and instructor evaluations or there may be many surveys for a given course and instructors throughout a semester.  Survey fatigue, defined as a decrease in respondent participation due to multiple surveys or very long surveys has been suggested to occur in students and other groups (1-3) and can affect the quality of the survey findings. ReferencesReferences 1.Sedlmeier, P. (2006) The role of scales in student ratings. Learning and Instruction, 16, Retrieved February 6, 2009 from EBSCOhost database. 2.Porter, S.R, Whitcomb, ME and Weitzer, WH. (2004) Multiple surveys of students and survey fatigue. New Directions for Institutional Research, 121, Sinickas, A. Finding a cure for survey fatigue, Available at Accessed July 15, 2009 Analysis of Variance: Difference among Instructors – Mean Instructor Scores df F p Instructors 219, p <.050 Analysis of Variance: Difference in percent response – Mean Instructor Response Rate df F p Instructors 219, Results – Representative Plots for PHC 312 and PHM/PHC 311 Results – Regression Analysis  In this initial review, findings show there are differences in the scores between different instructors, but the order of instructors during these on-line surveys does not affect the scores.  There does not seem to be any indication of survey fatigue given that the number of student responses does not decrease with survey length and the variance does not change with longer on-line surveys.  The results from the current study are confounded given there is no way to randomize the instructor order during a given on-line survey. A limitation in many of the current on-line course and instructor evaluation programs is that they do not permit the randomization of instructor order during the survey process.  There is no data to date to provide any suggestion of survey fatigue with multiple course and instructor evaluations at the end of each semester or throughout the semester.  This warrants further investigation given the importance of course and instructor evaluations for faculty portfolios and in our assessment programs.