The relationship between perceived preceptor power use and student empowerment during clerkship rotations: a study of hidden curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Medical learners are vulnerable to the social power used by preceptors. Furthermore, an individual's perceived level of personal empowerment has been identified as a predictor of positive behaviour in education environments. The degree to which medical students feel empowered in their clinical environments factors largely into how vulnerable they are to having their professional values influenced negatively by structural and cultural aspects of these environments. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to explore the relationship between clerks' perceptions of personal empowerment and the social power employed by their preceptors. This research also investigates the prevalence of negative power use as a function of the hierarchical organisation of a clerkship rotation. METHODS: Validated power use and empowerment surveys were modified for clinical learning environments and administered to clerkship learners across six clerkship rotations. The outcomes of the two surveys were subjected to correlational analyses. Outcomes associated with the use of each type of perceived power were analysed to determine the influence of the relative involvement of residents and staff physicians in preceptorship. RESULTS: Correlational analyses revealed strong relationships between clerks' perceptions of preceptor power use and their own personal empowerment. Furthermore, although participants perceived significantly more pro-social preceptor uses of power, clerks perceived a higher prevalence of coercive power on rotations with high involvement of residents as preceptors. CONCLUSIONS: Clerks' perceptions of empowerment correlate positively with positive power bases and negatively with negative dimensions of preceptor power. This research has implications for the importance of the development of resident and faculty staff as educators, the identification of clerks who are vulnerable to ethical violation, and for a refined understanding of the transactional way in which power is experienced in a medical education context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".