54 A Structured Oral Examination for Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional oral examinations have low reliability, although face validity may be acceptable. Often, candidates do not perceive them as a fair means of assessment. The structured oral examination (SOE) is a method that standardizes the examination process. To evaluate a SOE as an assessment tool in a neonatal-perinatal medicine subspecialty training program. A 1-hour SOE, consisting of 8 predetermined clinical scenarios (4 for first year candidates and 4 for second year), was administered to 13 neonatal-perinatal medicine trainees at the University of Toronto. Each scenario had 2–7 standardized questions, designed to assess several physician competencies (CanMEDS roles), as well as factual knowledge. Questions included expected responses and a specific marking scheme. Scenarios, questions and marking scheme were developed by 3 neonatal faculty, then reviewed by 3 other neonatologists from the same program and by 2 external neonatal faculty. 15 minutes was allotted per scenario. Two faculty examiners assigned scores independently for each scenario and also completed a 7-point process global rating to evaluate overall performance in each scenario. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to determine inter-rater reliability. SOE scores were compared with scores from an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) administered 6 months previously to assess criterion validity. Mean percentage score was 64±10 (sd) for the 6 first year trainees and 66±13 for 7 second year trainees. Global ratings were similar for the 2 years (4.6±0.8 vs 4.8±1.1, p>0.05). Scenario scores and global ratings were significantly correlated (r=0.81, p<0.001). There was moderate interstation reliability for the global ratings (Cronbach's alpha=0.48 for 1st year and 0.53 for 2nd year). Inter-rater reliability was substantial (ICC>0.61) for 65% of the stations. Correlations between SOE and OSCE scores and between SOE and OSCE overall global ratings were significant (r=0.58, p=0.04 and r=0.63, p=0.02 respectively). 92% of candidates and 83% of examiners indicated that the SOE was a fair and standardized means of evaluation. Administration costs associated with the SOE were minimal. Reliability of the SOE was appropriate for a training program assessment tool. The SOE was well accepted by trainees and faculty and was economical to administer. The SOE, therefore, may be a useful method for assessing subspecialty trainees.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".