Using the Entrustable Professional Activities Framework in the Assessment of Procedural Skills
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The entrustable professional activity (EPA) framework has been identified as a useful approach to assessment in competency-based education. To apply an EPA framework for assessment, essential skills necessary for entrustment to occur must first be identified. OBJECTIVE: Using an EPA framework, our study sought to (1) define the essential skills required for entrustment for 7 bedside procedures expected of graduates of Canadian internal medicine (IM) residency programs, and (2) develop rubrics for the assessment of these procedural skills. METHODS: An initial list of essential skills was defined for each procedural EPA by focus groups of experts at 4 academic centers using the nominal group technique. These lists were subsequently vetted by representatives from all Canadian IM training programs through a web-based survey. Consensus (more than 80% agreement) about inclusion of each item was sought using a modified Delphi exercise. Qualitative survey data were analyzed using a framework approach to inform final assessment rubrics for each procedure. RESULTS: Initial lists of essential skills for procedural EPAs ranged from 10 to 24 items. A total of 111 experts completed the national survey. After 2 iterations, consensus was reached on all items. Following qualitative analysis, final rubrics were created, which included 6 to 10 items per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: These EPA-based assessment rubrics represent a national consensus by Canadian IM clinician educators. They provide a practical guide for the assessment of procedural skills in a competency-based education model, and a robust foundation for future research on their implementation and evaluation.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it