The 2011 <scp>P</scp>rogram <scp>E</scp>valuation <scp>S</scp>tandards: a framework for quality in medical education programme evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Based on input from 400 stakeholders over 6 years, the 2011 Program Evaluation Standards represents an in-depth analysis of values, meaning and measurement and their relationships in programme evaluation. Evaluation quality is achieved by balancing five attributes: utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy and evaluation accountability. These attributes are used to organize 30 standards, 200 strategies and 197 hazards. METHOD: In response to a call from the authors of the standards, we have used them to guide our meta-evaluation of McGill's undergraduate physicianship programme. RESULTS: Our findings show how the standards illuminate the tensions, dilemmas and hazards inherent in all stages of programme evaluation studies and offer helpful strategies for designing and conducting high-quality evaluation studies. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experience, the third edition needs to be used as a reference document in all stages of evaluations of medical education programmes.
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 | 0.467 | 0.542 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".