A validated search assessment tool: assessing practice-based learning and improvement in a residency program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to validate an assessment instrument for MEDLINE search strategies at an academic medical center. METHOD: Two approaches were used to investigate if the search assessment tool could capture performance differences in search strategy construction. First, data from an evaluation of MEDLINE searches from a pediatric resident's longitudinal assessment were investigated. Second, a cross-section of search strategies from residents in one incoming class was compared with strategies of residents graduating a year later. MEDLINE search strategies formulated by faculty who had been identified as having search expertise were used as a gold standard comparison. Participants were presented with a clinical scenario and asked to identify the search question and conduct a MEDLINE search. Two librarians rated the blinded search strategies. RESULTS: Search strategy scores were significantly higher for residents who received training than the comparison group with no training. There was no significant difference in search strategy scores between senior residents who received training and faculty experts. CONCLUSION: The results provide evidence for the validity of the instrument to evaluate MEDLINE search strategies. This assessment tool can measure improvements in information-seeking skills and provide data to fulfill Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".