Evaluating pre‐clerkship professionalism in longitudinal small groups
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context and setting This report focuses on evaluation of professionalism within a new subcomponent of McMaster University's redesigned (2005) curriculum, specifically exploring the use of a rating tool to evaluate and provide feedback on 4 domains of professionalism identified as critical to a Year 1 medical student's performance in a competency-based, integrated professional skills curriculum. The ‘Professional Competency’ curriculum domains include: ethics and moral reasoning; communication skills; self-awareness; self-care; professionalism; clinical skills; lifelong learning, and social and community contexts of health care. Groups of 10 students and 2 facilitators (1 doctor and 1 from a non-medical clinical discipline) meet for 3 hours per week; the group remains intact until clerkship. The format of each week's session varies according to the identified domain(s) and may include practice sessions with standardised patients, case-based ethics or epidemiology problems, large-group sessions, personal reflections and critical incident reports. Why the idea was necessary New tools were necessary to monitor and evaluate performance within the new curriculum addressing pre-clerkship professionalism behaviours identified as essential for the foundations of collaborative practice. What was done Both facilitators completed weekly 10-point observational scales on each student. Students were informed that their performance on the following 4 behaviours would provide the basis of their interim professionalism evaluation (satisfactory/provisional satisfactory): accountability: showing up on time, informing group members of absences; respectful listening: making good eye contact, mirroring non-verbal cues, not interrupting, allowing others to complete thoughts; balancing inquiry and advocacy: respectfully holding dissenting opinion, exploring difference in others, generating/considering alternative perspectives; taking experiential education seriously: being honest about both interest and disengagement, being willing to provide/receive constructive feedback, making links with prior experience, being open to exploring personal impact on others. All students are required to achieve a satisfactory rating on all 4 domains in order to enter clerkship. Evaluation of results and impact Curriculum co-directors reviewed all 150 written interim reports in month 5 of the new curriculum. We were interested to know whether any students received ‘provisional satisfactories’ (and why) and whether students rated as ‘satisfactory’ also received specific ‘educational prescriptions’ that might guide ongoing development. A total of 6 students received ‘provisional satisfactory’ ratings. In this group, most were identified as having problems with difference, engaging with different opinions and managing strong emotions (especially anger). Two were identified as having problems in engaging with experiential education seriously. Thirty students received a ‘satisfactory’ rating, with specific suggestions for improvement. The category ‘taking experiential learning seriously’ received by far the most comments, specifically concerns about not being prepared for tutorials, needing to take more risks in contributing to group discussions and learning how to give constructive feedback. Other comments included concerns about punctuality and professional attire. The 7 comments under ‘balancing inquiry and advocacy’ were evenly divided between students who dominated process and others who exhibited problems in expressing their opinions. Our first use of this tool provided meaningful ratings and educational feedback about professional performance in a group-based curriculum designed to teach professional skills. Rating descriptors will need modification for performance review in clinical settings.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,028 | 0,042 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».