More Consensus Than Idiosyncrasy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Social judgment research suggests that rater unreliability in performance assessments arises from raters' differing inferences about the performer and the underlying reasons for the performance observed. These varying social judgments are not entirely idiosyncratic but, rather, tend to partition into a finite number of distinct subgroups, suggesting some "signal" in the "noise" of interrater variability. The authors investigated the proportion of variance in Mini-CEX ratings attributable to such partitions of raters' social judgments about residents. METHOD: In 2012 and 2013, physicians reviewed video-recorded patient encounters for seven residents, completed a Mini-CEX, and described their social judgments of the residents. Additional participants sorted these descriptions, which were analyzed using latent partition analysis (LPA). The best-fitting set of partitions for each resident served as an independent variable in a one-way ANOVA to determine the proportion of variance explained in Mini-CEX ratings. RESULTS: Forty-eight physicians rated at least one resident (34 assessed all seven). The seven sets of social judgments were sorted by 14 participants. Across residents, 2 to 5 partitions (mode: 4) provided a good LPA fit, suggesting that subgroups of raters were making similar social judgments, while different causal explanations for each resident's performance existed across subgroups. The partitions accounted for 9% to 57% of the variance in Mini-CEX ratings across residents (mean = 32%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that multiple "signals" do exist within the "noise" of interrater variability in performance-based assessment. It may be valuable to understand and exploit these multiple signals rather than try to eliminate them.
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 | 0.060 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".