Competency-Based Education: Milestones or Millstones1?
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the past decade, there has been increasing interest in competency-based education (CBE), the notion that an expert physician is defined by a broad set of identified competencies. The idea has been advanced, nearly simultaneously, in several countries—Canada (CanMEDS roles),1 the United States (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] competencies),2 the United Kingdom (Tomorrow's Doctor),3 and Scotland (the Scottish Doctor)4—and adopted by others. CanMEDS competencies have been adopted and adapted by 16 countries, including the Netherlands, Denmark, and Mexico.5 Moreover, the Carnegie Foundation's influential Flexner centenary strongly recommended adopting CBE and made the claim that “Adoption of OBE [outcome-based or competency-based education] would better equip medical graduates to respond effectively in complex situations and efficiently continue to expand the depth and breadth of the requisite competencies.”,6,7 Similar promises emerge from many of these foundational documents. Harden8(p666) ascribes a number of advantages to OBE/CBE: OBE is a sophisticated strategy for curriculum planning that offers a number of advantages. It is an intuitive approach that engages the range of stakeholders . . . it encourages a student-centred approach and at the same time supports the trend for greater accountability and quality assurance . . . [it] highlights areas in the curriculum which may be neglected . . . such as ethics and attitudes . . .. Regrettably, these declarations appear to be more a matter of faith than of evidence. The primary intent of CBE is, we believe, transparency, so that the profession and the public can be confident that a training program is producing competent physicians who are equipped with the knowledge and skills for practice. It is hard to challenge that premise; the issue is whether the proposed mechanisms can deliver on the promise. A corollary common to both CBE and its predecessor—behavioral objectives—is the notion that different learners will achieve different competencies at different rates, so that residents may be certified competent in starting an intravenous line early in their career but may take longer to achieve competency in intubation. The individual need not take additional time practicing skills for which he or she is competent and can, therefore, learn more efficiently by focusing on those skills for which competence has not yet been achieved. An extrapolation of that notion is that some residents may well achieve all the competencies available on a particular rotation earlier or later than others, and so, can progress through graduate medical education (GME) at a different pace. Whether the approach can be operationalized satisfactorily at the level of precision required to implement CBE, the fact remains that it may have positive side benefits, such as increased observations of residents, greater attention to the GME curriculum, and so forth. To ensure that those goals are met and the implementation of CBE is not sidelined by a ponderous administrative superstructure, this editorial is intended to elaborate potential problems at 3 levels: conceptual, psychometric, and logistic.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle