MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085821614 · doi:10.1002/chp.70

Effectiveness of an enhanced peer assessment program: Introducing education into regulatory assessment

2006· article· en· W2085821614 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Wenghofer, Daniel Way, Raquel Shaw Moxam, Henry C. Wu, Daniel Faulkner, D J Klass

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationPeer assessmentProgram evaluationPsychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario developed an enhanced peer assessment (EPA), the goal of which was to provide participating physicians educational value by helping them identify specific learning needs and aligning the assessment process with the principles of continuing education and professional development. In this article, we examine the educational value of the EPA and whether physicians will change their practice as a result of the recommendations received during the assessment. METHODS: A group of 41 randomly selected physicians (23 general or family practitioners, 7 obstetrician-gynecologists, and 11 general surgeons) agreed to participate in the EPA pilot. Nine experienced peer assessors were trained in the principles of knowledge translation and the use of practice resources (tool kits) and clinical practice guidelines. The EPA was evaluated through the use of a postassessment questionnaire and focus groups. RESULTS: The physicians felt that the EPA was fair and educationally valuable. Most focus group participants indicated that they implemented recommendations made by the assessor and made changes to some aspect of their practice. The physicians' suggestions for improvement included expanding the assessment beyond the current medical record review and interview format (eg, to include multisource feedback), having assessments occur at regular intervals (eg, every 5 to 10 years), and improving the administrative process by which physicians apply for educational credit for EPA activities. CONCLUSIONS: The EPA pilot study has demonstrated that providing detailed individualized feedback and optimizing the one-to-one interaction between assessors and physicians is a promising method for changing physician behavior. The college has started the process of aligning all its peer assessments with the principles of continuing professional development outlined in the EPA model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.448 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health ProfessionsSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207