49. Effect of a resident-as-teacher training programme on surgical resident clinical teaching skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to assess the benefits of a resident-as-teacher training programme on surgical residents within a surgical clinical teaching unit. A randomized controlled trial was conducted at McMaster University between July 2005 and June 2006. Twenty-eight (28) General Surgery Residents and one 134 Medical Students participated in the study. Residents were randomly assigned to participate in a two-day training course on clinical teaching skills at the 3 or 12-month interval. Medical Students completed teaching evaluations on residents whom they had significant exposure. Resident scores on teaching evaluations as well as medical student performance on rotation examinations were assessed. The intervention (n=14) and control (n=14) groups were at similar levels of training. Only 5 intervention and 9 control residents had both pre and post intervention evaluations. Evaluations were measured on a 1 to 5 Likert scale. Data was analyzed by intention-to-treat. The mean evaluation score in both control and intervention groups were higher than pre-intervention (8% and 14%, p=0.03). However, the magnitude of change between the 2 groups was not statistically significant. Medical student performance by those exposed to more intervention residents was not significantly different from those exposed to more control residents. There is a significant improvement in resident teaching over an academic year, as determined by medical student evaluations of the resident-teachers. Although there was a trend of improved teaching with the teaching- skills intervention, the difference was not statistically significant, and did not affect medical student performance on the end-of rotation examinations. Blue AV, et al. Surgical Teaching Quality Makes a Difference. American Journal of Surgery 1999; 177:86-9. Dunnington GL, DaRosa D. A prospective Randomized Trial of Residents-as-teachers Training Program. Academic Medicine 1998; 73: 696-700. Griffith CH, et al. Relationship of How Well Attending Physicians Teach to Their Students’ Performances and Residency Choices. Academic Medicine 1997; 72:S118-120.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".