McMaster Modular Assessment Program (McMAP) Through the Years: Residents’ Experience of an Evolving Feedback Culture Created by a Programmatic, Workplace-Based Assessment System Over a Three-Year Period
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: Assessing resident competency in emergency department (ED) settings requires observing a substantial number of work-based skills and tasks. The McMaster Modular Assessment Program (McMAP) is a novel, workplace-based assessment (WBA) system that uses task-specific and global low-stakes assessments of resident performance. The evaluation of a WBA program three years after implementation is described. Method: We used a qualitative approach, conducting focus groups with resident physicians in all five postgraduate years (N = 26) who used McMAP as part of McMaster University’s emergency medicine residency program. Responses were triangulated using a follow-up written survey. Data were analyzed using theory-based thematic analysis. An audit trail was reviewed to ensure that all themes were captured. Results: Residents identified elements of McMAP that were perceived as supporting or inhibiting learning. Residents shared their opinions on the feasibility of completing daily WBAs, perceptions and utilization of rating scales, and the value of structured feedback (written and verbal) from faculty. Of great interest was the emergent culture around feedback that is evolving. The residents’ focus groups have suggested to us that there is an emergent culture around learning and feedback that is occurring to meet the demands of the rich, programmatic WBA system we have implemented. Residents commented extensively on the evolving and improving feedback culture that has been created within our system. Residents noted that McMAP prompted teaching and feedback on topics and areas not previously discussed between faculty–resident dyads. They also noted that at times, much more feedback is given than actually written in the comments, suggesting a high level of formative feedback that is occurring outside of our formal assessment systems. Residents infer that this may be due to variable levels of comfort on the side of the faculty members to act as assessors; although they have much advice to share, they might not be comfortable with using this information in an official assessment capacity. Conclusions: A programmatic approach to WBAs can foster opportunities for feedback, although barriers must still be overcome in order to fully realize the potential of a continuous WBA system. Professional culture change is required to implement and routinely use WBAs over time. Barriers, such as familiarity with assessment system logistics, faculty member discomfort with providing feedback, and empowering residents to ask faculty for direct observations and assessments, must be addressed to realize the potential of a programmatic WBA system.
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 | 0,006 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».