The effects of examination stress on the performance of emergency medicine residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Despite the finding that residents are exposed to significant stressors during their training, little is known about the impact of these stressors on performance. The objectives of this project were to measure the subjective anxiety felt by emergency medicine (EM) residents during in-training examinations, and to determine the effect of this anxiety on their ability to diagnose visual stimuli such as X-rays, photographs and electrocardiographs. METHODS: Two examinations, matched for difficulty and length, were constructed based on the performance of 23 residents in 2 Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) EM residency programmes. These examinations were then administered at 2-week intervals to another 24 residents in 2 additional RCPSC EM programmes. One examination was administered under high-stress conditions (in-training examination) and the other under low-stress (control) conditions. Perceived anxiety was measured using the state scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory before and after each iteration of the examination. RESULTS: Residents reported higher levels of anxiety in the high-stress condition (41.5 versus 35.9, P < 0.05). Examination scores were higher in the high-stress condition (70.4 versus 64.4, P < 0.01). The scores of junior residents improved in the high-stress condition, whereas those of intermediate and senior residents did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine residents report higher anxiety during in-training examinations compared with control conditions. Residents at all levels exhibited similar perceptions of anxiety. Junior residents performed better under stress, achieving higher scores during the in-training examination than during the control condition. The performance of more experienced residents was not affected by the stress condition.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".