The Influence of Residents Training Level on Their Evaluation of Clinical Teaching Faculty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluations by learners are the most common sources of information on teaching. There is some debate about the role of these assessments, but the overall evaluation of faculty by learners was found to be valid and reliable. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the level of training of family medicine residents and their evaluation of emergency medicine clinical teachers over time. METHODS: A prospective cohort analysis of 6 years of faculty evaluation of 115 teachers was conducted. RESULTS: The 562 residents returned 3,046 valid individual evaluations. There was no significant association between the level of residents' training and the ratings for clinical instruction (p > .05). Resident evaluations did not vary by time of year (p > .05); however, they did significantly differ by year of evaluation, showing that ratings increased over the 6 years of the study (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Neither the residents' level of training nor the timing during the academic year were significant independent predictors of perceived superior teaching performance, although ratings increased over the 6 years of the study.
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 | 0.044 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".