The Practicum Script Concordance Test: An Online Continuing Professional Development Format to Foster Reflection on Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Judgment in the face of uncertainty is an important dimension of expertise and clinical competence. However, it is challenging to conceive continuing professional development (CPD) initiatives aimed at helping physicians enhance their clinical judgment skills in ill-defined situations. We present an online script concordance-based CPD program (the Practicum Script Concordance Test, copyright ©2006 by Practicum Foundation), a tool that can be used to support health professionals in the development of their reflective clinical reasoning ability. We describe the rationale and principles and report on the implementation of 2 online programs based on this new CPD initiative. METHOD: The Practicum Script Concordance Test program consists of daily testing and feedback over the course of a year using SCT items. Feedback is both global (eg, health professionals are told their cumulative mean score) and specific (eg, they can view the expert panel's responses together with their justifications for their answers). Participants have the option of contacting a personal tutor, to whom they can send questions. Data regarding feasibility, participation, and acceptability were collected. RESULTS: Initial implementation took place in Mexico where 1901 physicians (1349 paediatricians, 552 cardiologists) were enrolled in Practicum programs. Around 70% of those enrolled pursued the program and were very satisfied with its format and content. The online format was an important factor in the development and maintenance of the programs. Dropouts had issues with the SCT concept and the time required to participate. DISCUSSION: The on-line Practicum Script Concordance Test program was designed to foster expertise development based on practice, reflection and feedback. Although further research is needed to examine its impact physicians' practice and ultimately on patient outcomes, it is an original and promising development in CPD.
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 | 0.018 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".