Academic Performance of Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship Versus Rotation-Based Clerkship Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prior studies suggest that students on a longitudinal integrated clerkship (LIC) have comparable academic performance to those on a rotation-based clerkship (RBC); however, most of these studies did not adjust for preclerkship academic performance. The objective of this study was to compare the academic performance of LIC and RBC students matched on prior academic performance over a three-year period. METHOD: Each LIC student in the University of Calgary classes of 2009, 2010, and 2011 (n = 34) was matched with four RBC students (n = 136) of similar prior academic performance. Knowledge and clinical skills performance between the streams was compared. Knowledge was evaluated by internal summative examinations and the Medical Council of Canada Part 1 licensing exam. Clinical skills were evaluated via in-training evaluation report (ITERs) and performance on the clerkship objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Meta-analysis was used to compare knowledge evaluations and clinical performance for all core clerkship disciplines, and pooled effect sizes from the fixed-effect models were reported. RESULTS: Meta-analyses showed no statistically significant heterogeneity. There were no differences between LIC and RBC students on knowledge evaluations (pooled effect size 0.019; 95% confidence interval [-0.155, 0.152], P = .8), ITERs (pooled effect size -0.015 [-0.157, 0.127], P = .8), or mean OSCE ratings (67.9 [SD = 4.6] versus 68.6 [SD = 5.8], P = .5). CONCLUSIONS: After matching on prior academic performance, LIC and RBC students at one school had comparable performance on summative evaluations of knowledge, clinical performance, and clinical skills over three years.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".