Team-Based Decision-Making in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Evaluation of pre-licensure students' competency in team-based decision-making is lacking. The purposes of this study were to evaluate pre-licensure pharmacy students' competency in team-based decision-making in the context of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and to determine whether performance correlated with reflective assignment scores. Students' self-assessment and conceptualization of team-based decision-making in practice was also evaluated. Twenty-three pre-licensure pharmacy students' competency in team-based decision-making was evaluated in an OSCE station and with a reflective journal assignment; rubric scores for both evaluations were compared using Spearman's rank order analysis. Students completed an 18-item questionnaire regarding attitudes, confidence, and perceptions related to team-based decision-making. Descriptive statistics and construct analysis with open coding were used to analyse questionnaire results. Mean OSCE station and reflective journal scores were 45% and 66.3%, respectively, and were not correlated. Students' attitudes toward team-based decision-making were positive, and they reported performing associated behaviours during experiential education rotations. Students appropriately defined 'team-based decision-making' and were highly confident in performing related activities. However, students' conceptualization of team-based decision-making did not align with the pharmacy program's competency framework. Three key themes were identified through the study analyses: 1) student performance is dependent on assessment context when evaluating collaborator-related competencies; 2) there is a mismatch between students' perceived competency and objectively measured competence when collaborator outcomes were assessed within an OSCE; and 3) students' perceptions of team-based decision-making do not align with the program's competency framework. Future research is necessary to assess competency and perceptions of team-based decision-making in students from other healthcare professions, and to further evaluate whether pre-licensure students are "collaborative practice ready".
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 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 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».