MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2428864423 · doi:10.1111/medu.13054

Generalisability theory analyses of concept mapping assessment scores in a problem‐based medical curriculum

2016· article· en· W2428864423 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariance (accounting)Context (archaeology)Concept mapDependabilityReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyCurriculumConstruct (python library)Mathematics educationStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsPedagogyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.383 · 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