MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553217595 · doi:10.1002/aet2.10009

McMaster Modular Assessment Program (McMAP) Through the Years: Residents' Experience With an Evolving Feedback Culture Over a 3‐year Period

2016· article· en· W2553217595 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAEM Education and Training · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
KeywordsMedical educationThematic analysisAuditFocus groupFormative assessmentPsychologyModular designPerceptionMedicineQualitative researchComputer sciencePedagogyManagementSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Assessing resident competency in emergency department settings requires observing a substantial number of work-based skills and tasks. The McMaster Modular Assessment Program (McMAP) is a novel, workplace-based assessment (WBA) system that uses task-specific and global low-stakes assessments of resident performance. We describe the evaluation of a WBA program 3 years after implementation. METHODS: = 26) who used McMAP as part of McMaster University's emergency medicine residency program. Responses were triangulated using a follow-up written survey. Data were analyzed using theory-based thematic analysis. An audit trail was reviewed to ensure that all themes were captured. RESULTS: Findings were organized at the level of the learner (residents), faculty, and system. Residents identified elements of McMAP that were perceived as supporting or inhibiting learning. Residents shared their opinions on the feasibility of completing daily WBAs, perceptions and utilization of rating scales, and the value of structured feedback (written and verbal) from faculty. Residents also commented extensively on the evolving and improving feedback culture that has been created within our system. CONCLUSION: The study describes an evolving culture of feedback that promotes the process of informed self-assessment. A programmatic approach to WBAs can foster opportunities for feedback although barriers must still be overcome to fully realize the potential of a continuous WBA system. A professional culture change is required to implement and encourage the routine use of WBAs. Barriers, such as familiarity with assessment system logistics, faculty member discomfort with providing feedback, and empowering residents to ask faculty for direct observations and assessments must be addressed to realize the potential of a programmatic WBA system. Findings may inform future research in identifying key components of successful implementation of a programmatic workplace-based assessment system.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.343 · 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