Generalisability theory analyses of concept mapping assessment scores in a problem‐based medical curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: In problem-based learning (PBL), students construct concept maps that integrate different concepts related to the PBL case and are guided by the learning needs generated in small-group tutorials. Although an instrument to measure students' concept maps in PBL programmes has been developed, the psychometric properties of this instrument have not yet been assessed. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the generalisability of and sources of variance in medical students' concept map assessment scores in a PBL context. METHODS: Medical students (Year 4, n = 116) were asked to construct three integrated concept maps in which the content domain of each map was to be focused on a PBL clinical case. Concept maps were independently evaluated by four raters based on five criteria: valid selection of concepts; hierarchical arrangement of concepts; degree of integration; relationship to the context of the problem, and degree of student creativity. Generalisability theory was used to compute the reliability of the concept map scores. RESULTS: The dependability coefficient, which indicates the reliability of scores across the measured facets for making absolute decisions, was 0.814. Students' concept map scores (universe scores) accounted for the largest proportion of total variance (47%) across all score comparisons. Rater differences accounted for 10% of total variance, and the student × rater interaction accounted for 25% of total variance. The variance attributable to differences in the content domain of the maps was negligible (2%). The remaining 16% of the variance reflected unexplained sources of error. Results from the D study suggested that a dependability level of 0.80 can be achieved by using three raters who each score two concept map domains, or by using five raters who each score only one concept map domain. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that concept mapping assessment scores of medical students in PBL have high reliability. Results suggested that greater improvements in dependability might be made by increasing the number of raters rather than by increasing the number of concept map domains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.346 | 0.632 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".