MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017641981 · doi:10.1016/s2007-5057(15)30011-9

Evaluation of an innovative learner-centred assessment program for family medicine residency training

2015· article· es· W2017641981 on OpenAlexaffabout
Keith Wycliffe-Jones, Vishal Bhella, Sonya LeeLee, Maria Palacios Mackay

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigación en Educación Médica · 2015
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidency trainingMedical educationTraining (meteorology)PsychologyMedicineContinuing education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Purpose The Calgary Family Medicine Residency Program introduced its new “Triple-C” competency-based curriculum in 2012 and concomitantly developed and implemented an innovative competency-based assessment program based on current best-practice recommendations. This new assessment program utilizes multiple assessment data including field notes, progress reviews, self-assessments and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPA's). This 2-phase project studies the impact of the implementing this new assessment program at both Resident and Preceptor levels (Phase I) and also the evidence for the reliability, validity and feasibility of the assessment methods chosen (Phase 2). Methods In Phase I of this study, a total of 10 Residents and 16 Preceptors were interviewed to explore their experiences of the new assessment program. Study participants were selected using a purposeful sampling method and interviews completed using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim for thematic analysis. Data from the Phase 1 interviews was used to generate the Phase 2 program-wide survey instrument for use by all Preceptors and Residents. Results Qualitative data from the Phase 1 thematic analysis will be presented. Results include i) implementation issues –barriers and facilitators, ii) Resident and Preceptor perceptions around educational benefits of the new assessment program and its value in promoting learning. Preliminary quantitative data from Phase 2 will also be presented. Conclusions The results this study will help our understanding of how a multi-method, workplaced based assessment program impacts learners and preceptors, and to what extent both learners and teachers accept the legitimacy of these processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.274
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigación en Educación MédicaSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207