LO53: The correlation of workplace-based assessments with periodic performance assessment of emergency medicine residents
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Competency-based medical education (CBME) relies on pragmatic assessment to inform trainee progression decisions. It is unclear whether face-to-face workplace-based assessment (WBA) scoring by faculty reflects their true perception of trainee competence, as many factors influence individual assessments. To better defend competence committee decisions, it is critical to understand how accurately WBAs reflect the faculty's honest perception of resident competence and entrustment. Methods: To best capture faculty perception of trainee competence, we created a periodic performance assessment (PPA) tool for anonymous faculty assessment of residents after repeated clinical interactions. PPA surveys were distributed to full-time EM faculty at a single Canadian FRCPC-EM training site. Faculty were asked to score residents on entrustable professional activities (EPAs) based on encounters over the previous 6-months, and were advised that all data would be anonymized. All WBA scores for FRCPC-EM residents (N = 21) were collected from the 6-months preceding PPA completion. Analysis compared paired WBA and PPA entrustment scores for an individual resident, faculty, and EPA using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests and Spearman correlations. Data were analyzed across faculty, EPAs, and both faculty and EPA. Results: About half (17/33) of all invited full-time EM faculty participated. Overall, anonymous PPAs had a significantly lower mean score compared to face-to-face WBAs (3.61-3.69 vs. 3.92-4.06, p < 0.001 for all) across all groupings. Individual WBAs had a low-moderate correlation with individual PPAs (rho = 0.44). When scores were averaged across 1) faculty or 2) EPA, there was an increase in correlation, but it remained moderate (rho = 0.53 and 0.54, respectively). When scores were averaged for an individual resident across 3) faculty and EPA, there was a strong correlation between WBA and PPA (rho = 0.86). Conclusion: There is only moderate correlation between an individual faculty's WBAs and their anonymous longitudinal entrustment for a given resident on a specific EPA. These results may signal caution when interpreting WBA scores in the context of high stakes decisions. Aggregated scores from multiple faculty and/or multiple EPAs substantially increased the correlation between WBA and PPA. These findings highlight the importance of using aggregated WBA scores across multiple assessors and EPA for high-stakes resident progression decisions, to minimize the noise and bias in individual assessment.
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 | 0,036 |
| 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 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
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 ».