The Development of an Online Practice-Based Evaluation Tool for Social Work
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This paper describes the development of a practice-based evaluation (PBE) tool that allows instructors to represent their student’s clinical performance in a way that is sufficiently authentic to resonate with both instructors and students, is psychometrically sound, and is feasible in the context of real practice. Method: A new online evaluation tool was designed to address several of the problems associated with previous methods of evaluation, and was tested on 190 field instructor—student pairs. Results: Results demonstrated feasibility of the tool, high acceptability from students and faculty, high internal consistency, and clearly reduced ceiling effect, when compared with a traditional competency-based evaluation (CBE) tool. It did, however, continue to result in a strong skew toward positive evaluation and did not increase the identification of students at risk. Conclusions: The online PBE tool demonstrates promise in redressing some of the evaluation issues posed by the previous CBE model of evaluation.
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.
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 | 0.026 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it