The Development and Implementation of New Assessment Tools for the Surgical Clerkship Rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Innovation: We developed two new rubrics with explicit behavioural anchors to assess students in the Queen's undergraduate medical education (UGME) surgery clerkship rotation. These rotation rubrics, complemented by a new ambulatory clinic encounter card, improved the quality, consistency, and timeliness of feedback for clerks from faculty preceptors. This innovation was introduced during a comprehensive workplace-based assessment re-design being undertaken in the Department of Surgery as part of the transition to a post-graduate competency-based medical education (CBME) system for post-graduate education (PGME). The core UGME working group, comprised of a faculty surgeon, assessment consultant, and a surgical resident, selected terminology and designed the tool visual structure to be similar to the new post-graduate assessment tools, since most preceptors supervise learners in both programs. This consistency enhanced buy-in from faculty and ensured a smooth transition to the use of the new UGME tools. Development: The new assessment process was developed and piloted in three phases: (1) development of an assessment system based on rubrics with explicit behavioural descriptors as the key assessment tools; (2) implementation of a pilot study to establish the acceptability and feasibility of the use of these rubrics, with iterative revisions based on stakeholder feedback; and (3) development of a validity argument for the use of these assessment tools. The latter is scheduled for 2018. Outcomes: The use of these rotation behaviour-anchored rubrics and corresponding ambulatory clinic encounter card has greatly improved the mid- and final-rotation feedback provided to students on the Surgery Clerkship. The concrete, descriptive information provided by the rubrics allows the course director to provide specific feedback during rotation exit meetings. The course director has the ability to clearly articulate to students the areas where they have met (or exceeded) the expected level of competency, as well as areas which require additional attention.
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 | 0.090 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".