MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024532747 · doi:10.1080/10401330701542685

How to Use Structural Equation Modeling in Medical Education Research: A Brief Guide

2007· article· en· W2024532747 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching and Learning in Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingLatent variableTest (biology)Statistical modelComputer sciencePsychologyMeasure (data warehouse)Statistical hypothesis testingMedical educationManagement scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceMathematicsData miningStatisticsMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Structural equationmodeling (SEM) is a family of statistical techniques used for the analysis of multivariate data to measure latent variables and their interrelationships. SEM has potential to advance theory and research in medical education. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to introduce SEM to medical education researchers and provide procedural information for applying SEM. METHODS: We outline the basic tenets of SEM, principles of model creation, identification, estimation, and model fit to data, and the use of SEM in medical education research. RESULTS: Although it is a powerful statistical research tool, SEM has had only limited use in medical education research. We explicate a five-step procedure for applying SEM to research problems and summarize an example of SEM to test a hypothetical model. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding some pitfalls, SEM does provide promise for testing complex, integrated theoretical models and advance research in medical education.

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.

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)0.130
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.773
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1300.773
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.683
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.101 · 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