Interprofessional preceptor and preceptee educational programing: An interdisciplinary needs assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a needs assessment undertaken by an interdisciplinary team concerned with developing an interprofessional preceptor and preceptee education program for health professionals and students. The study draws on a pragmatic philosophical perspective, to undertake what Robson (1993) referred to as “real world research”, with the aim of applying the results for practical purposes. The objective of the needs assessment was to identify which content areas were considered to be of greatest educational value to an interdisciplinary range of health professional preceptors and students. In addition, the needs assessment sought to ascertain whether preceptors and students would find such an education resource useful, and if they would use a web-based electronic resource, and to identify preferred formats of potential educational modules. The needs assessment involved three phases: a literature review, an environmental scan of available preceptor/preceptee education programs and the design and implementation of a preceptor/preceptee survey. The results of the study point to content areas in education and design that hold relevance for both preceptors and preceptees. The findings hold significance for others concerned with preceptor and student preparation, and informed the development of an open access, online interprofessional educational program (Bossers et al., 2007).
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".