Effect of a review course on emergency medicine residents' self‐confidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several organizations offer review courses designed to guide final-year (postgraduate year five) residents' study for their certification examination. The effect of these courses on residents' confidence is unknown. Self-confidence has been positively linked with examination performance. The present study measures the impact of a review course on fifth-year emergency medicine residents' overall confidence and confidence in their: (i) knowledge and its application; (ii) planned study strategies to master the knowledge/application; and (iii) recognition that mastery of knowledge/application had been achieved. METHODS: Before/after study. Over the initial 2 years, 46 postgraduate year five residents from all 12 Canadian emergency medicine programmes attended the course. They prospectively completed a pre-/post-course questionnaire on the above-listed aspects of self-confidence, for each of 22 clinical domains. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used for each question. Pre-/post-course means were compared using t-tests for matched pairs. RESULTS: Data were complete for 36 participants (78%). The course significantly increased residents' overall self-confidence (mean difference 0.38, standard error of the mean [SEM] 0.06, P < 0.001), confidence in knowledge/application (mean difference 0.28, SEM 0.06, P < 0.001), in their study strategies to master knowledge/application (mean difference 0.48, SEM 0.08, P < 0.001) and in their recognition of knowledge/application mastery (mean difference 0.45, SEM 0.11, P < 0.001). Domains showing increased self-confidence did not match domains specifically addressed in the course, suggesting that the course effects extend beyond the selected topics. CONCLUSIONS: A review course increased emergency medicine residents' self-assessed confidence in their knowledge/application, in their study strategies and in their recognition of mastery, beyond the course specifics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".