MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177794152 · doi:10.4085/0804109

Application of “Earl's Assessment as, Assessment for, and Assessment of Learning Model” with Orthopaedic Assessment Clinical Competence

2013· article· en· W2177794152 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAthletic Training Education Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Context (archaeology)Post-hoc analysisConstruct validityRepeated measures designAnalysis of varianceSignificant differencePsychologyPhysical therapyPost hocScheffé's methodMedicinePsychometricsClinical psychologySocial psychologyStatisticsInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context In order to study the efficacy of assessment methods, a theoretical framework of Earl's model of assessment was introduced. Objective (1) Introduce the predictive learning assessment model (PLAM) as an application of Earl's model of learning; (2) test Earl's model of learning through the use of the Standardized Orthopedic Assessment Tool (SOAT); and (3) establish construct validity of the SOAT. Design Quasi-experimental. Setting Three Canadian universities Patients or Other Participants A convenience sample of 57 third-year undergraduate athletic therapy students from three universities were randomly assigned into three experimental groups. Intervention(s) Treatment group 1 gave the instructor access to the SOAT, but the instructor could not explicitly share it. Treatment group 2 gave both the instructor and students access to the SOAT throughout the semester to use formatively. Group three was the comparison. Main Outcome Measure(s) All students were tested using the SOAT at the end of the semester using expert raters. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) (P < .05) was used to determine whether there was a difference between groups in their final examination grades. Results The ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference between groups (F2,56 = 28.6, P < .01). The effect size, calculated using η2, was 0.51. Post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference between treatment group 2 and the other treatment group and comparison group. Conclusions Small sample size and the quasi-experimental design prevent definitive conclusions, but the SOAT was able to discriminate between various groups, supporting our construct validity objective. The SOAT was introduced as a predictive tool that may assist orthopaedic assessment skill development. The treatment group exposed to the SOAT demonstrated that formative assessment of students using the SOAT was an effective means of teaching relative to no exposure or where only the instructor was exposed to the SOAT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.393 · 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