The Dependability of Medical Students??? Performance Ratings as Documented on In-Training Evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate an approach to obtain an unbiased estimate of the dependability of students' performance ratings during training, when the data-collection design includes nesting of student in rater, unbalanced nest sizes, and dependent observations. METHOD: In 2003, two variance components analyses of in-training evaluation (ITE) report data were conducted using urGENOVA software. In the first analysis, the dependability for the nested and unbalanced data-collection design was calculated. In the second analysis, an approach using multiple generalizability studies was used to obtain an unbiased estimate of the student variance component, resulting in an unbiased estimate of dependability. RESULTS: Results suggested that there is bias in estimates of the dependability of students' performance on ITEs that are attributable to the data-collection design. When the bias was corrected, the results indicated that the dependability of ratings of student performance was almost zero. CONCLUSION: The combination of the multiple generalizability studies method and the use of specialized software provides an unbiased estimate of the dependability of ratings of student performance on ITE scores for data-collection designs that include nesting of student in rater, unbalanced nest sizes, and dependent observations.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".