Levels of Continuing Veterinary Medical Education Program Evaluation: Assessing a Course on Dairy Reproductive Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are four different levels of continuing education program evaluation: participant perceptions of the program or course; participant competence with new skills, knowledge, and abilities; participant performance or change in behavior; and health care or client outcomes, such as resultant changes in patient care or herd/flock production performance. The purpose of this article is to describe different levels of evaluation and demonstrate some methods used in evaluating a continuing veterinary medical education (CVME) course in dairy reproductive management. Participants' learning needs were assessed using learning stage theory and a pre-test of knowledge. Post-program assessments included a test of knowledge, a satisfaction survey, a commitment to change, and self-reported behavior change. The results of the evaluation indicate that self-reports of learning needs do not necessarily reflect actual needs and that satisfaction with a course does not necessarily indicate behavior change. Providers of CVME must recognize the value of program evaluation, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of different evaluation methods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".