The McMaster Narrative Comment Rating Tool: Development and Initial Validity Evidence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONSTRUCT: The McMaster Narrative Comment Rating Tool aims to capture critical features reflecting the quality of written narrative comments provided in the medical education context: valence/tone of language, degree of correction versus reinforcement, specificity, actionability, and overall usefulness. BACKGROUND: Despite their role in competency-based medical education, not all narrative comments contribute meaningfully to the development of learners' competence. To develop solutions to mitigate this problem, robust measures of narrative comment quality are needed. While some tools exist, most were created in specialty-specific contexts, have focused on one or two features of feedback, or have focused on faculty perceptions of feedback, excluding learners from the validation process. In this study, we aimed to develop a detailed, broadly applicable narrative comment quality assessment tool that drew upon features of high-quality assessment and feedback and could be used by a variety of raters to inform future research, including applications related to automated analysis of narrative comment quality. APPROACH: In Phase 1, we used the literature to identify five critical features of feedback. We then developed rating scales for each of the features, and collected 670 competency-based assessments completed by first-year surgical residents in the first six-weeks of training. Residents were from nine different programs at a Canadian institution. In Phase 2, we randomly selected 50 assessments with written feedback from the dataset. Two education researchers used the scale to independently score the written comments and refine the rating tool. In Phase 3, 10 raters, including two medical education researchers, two medical students, two residents, two clinical faculty members, and two laypersons from the community, used the tool to independently and blindly rate written comments from another 50 randomly selected assessments from the dataset. We compared scores between and across rater pairs to assess reliability. FINDINGS: <.05), apart from valence, which was only significantly correlated with degree of correction versus reinforcement. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the McMaster Narrative Comment Rating Tool can reliably be used by multiple raters, across a variety of rater types, and in different surgical contexts. As such, it has the potential to support faculty development initiatives on assessment and feedback, and may be used as a tool to conduct research on different assessment strategies, including automated analysis of narrative comments.
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 | 0,009 | 0,016 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».