MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2109124005

Effect of field notes on confidence and perceived competence: survey of faculty and residents.

2012· article· en· W2109124005 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tom Laughlin, Amy Brennan, Carlos Brailovsky

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Medical educationNova scotiaMedicinePsychologyFamily medicineSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of field notes in assessing teachers' confidence and perceived competence, and the effect of field notes on residents' perceptions of their development of competence. DESIGN: A faculty and resident survey completed 5 years after field notes were introduced into the program. SETTING: Five Dalhousie University family medicine sites--Fredericton, Moncton, and Saint John in New Brunswick, and Halifax and Sydney in Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: First- and second-year family medicine residents (as of May 2009) and core family medicine faculty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Residents' outcome measures included beliefs about the effects of field notes on performance, learning, reflection, clinical skills development, and feedback received. Faculty outcome measures included beliefs about the effect of field notes on guiding feedback, teaching, and reflection on clinical practice. RESULTS: Forty of 88 residents (45.5%) participated. Fifteen of 50 faculty (30.0%) participated, which only permitted a discussion of trends for faculty. Residents believed field note-directed feedback reinforced their performance (81.1%), helped them learn (67.6%), helped them reflect on practice and learning (66.7%), and focused the feedback they received, making it more useful (62.2%) (P < .001 for all); 63.3% believed field note-directed feedback helped with clinical skills development (P < .01). Faculty believed field notes helped to provide more focused (86.7%) and effective feedback (78.6%), improved teaching (75.0%), and encouraged reflection on their own clinical practice (73.3%). CONCLUSION: Most surveyed residents believed field note use improved the feedback they received and helped them to develop competence through improved performance, learning, reflection, and clinical skills development. The trends from faculty information suggested faculty believed field notes were an effective teaching, feedback, and reflection tool.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→