Assessing the mini‐Clinical Evaluation Exercise in comparison to a national specialty examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX) for postgraduate year 4 (PGY-4) internal medicine trainees compared to a high-stakes assessment of clinical competence, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Comprehensive Examination in Internal Medicine (RCPSC IM examination). METHODS: Twenty-two PGY-4 residents at the University of British Columbia and the University of Calgary were evaluated, during the 6 months preceding their 2004 RCPSC IM examination, with a mean of 5.5 mini-CEX encounters (range 3-6). Experienced Royal College examiners from each site travelled to the alternate university to assess the encounters. RESULTS: The mini-CEX encounters assessed a broad range of internal medicine patient problems. The inter-encounter reliability for the residents' mean mini-CEX overall clinical competence score was 0.74. The attenuated correlation between residents' mini-CEX overall clinical competence score and their 2004 RCPSC IM oral examination score was 0.59 (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: By examining multiple sources of validity evidence, this study suggests that the mini-CEX provides a reliable and valid assessment of clinical competence for PGY-4 trainees in internal medicine.
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 | 0.008 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".