MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590989019 · doi:10.1111/medu.13223

Describing student performance: a comparison among clinical preceptors across cultural contexts

2017· article· en· W2590989019 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kerry Wilbur, Noha Hassaballa, Omaima Mahmood, Emily Black

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersQatar University
KeywordsMedical educationPsychologyMEDLINEEducational measurementMedicineMathematics educationPedagogyCurriculumPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Health professional student evaluation during experiential training is notably subjective and assessor judgements may be affected by socio-cultural influences. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore how clinical preceptors in pharmacy conceptualise varying levels of student performance and to identify any contextual differences that may exist across different countries. METHODS: The qualitative research design employed semi-structured interviews. A sample of 20 clinical preceptors for post-baccalaureate Doctor of Pharmacy programmes in Canada and the Middle East gave personal accounts of how students they had supervised fell below, met or exceeded their expectations. Discussions were analysed following constructivist grounded theory principles. RESULTS: Seven major themes encompassing how clinical pharmacy preceptors categorise levels of student performance and behaviour were identified: knowledge; team interaction; motivation; skills; patient care; communication, and professionalism. Expectations were outlined using both positive and negative descriptions. Pharmacists typically described supervisory experiences representing a series of these categories, but arrived at concluding judgements in a holistic fashion: if valued traits of motivation and positive attitude were present, overall favourable impressions of a student could be maintained despite observations of a few deficiencies. Some prioritised dimensions could not be mapped to defined existing educational outcomes. There was no difference in thresholds for how student performance was distinguished by participants in the two regions. CONCLUSIONS: The present research findings are congruent with current literature related to the constructs used by clinical supervisors in health professional student workplace-based assessment and provide additional insight into cross-national perspectives in pharmacy. As previously determined in social work and medicine, further study of how evaluation instruments and associated processes can integrate these judgements should be pursued in this discipline.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.430 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207