MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796972293 · doi:10.1136/leader-2017-000048

Developmental readiness and leadership development in medicine

2018· article· en· W2796972293 on OpenAlexaff
Anurag Saxena, Loni Desanghere, Palak Suryavanshi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Leader · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipTransactional leadershipPsychologyLeadership developmentSocial psychologyLeadership styleCross-cultural leadershipShared leadershipPublic relationsPolitical scienceNeuroleadership

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Leadership is a key competency for physicians. Based on the premise that not everyone benefits equally from leadership development programmes, the leader developmental readiness (LDR; ability and motivation to develop) construct has been proposed to account for the differences. The purpose of this project was to explore the relationship between LDR, leadership experience, leader behaviours and leader efficacy in medical learners. Method Survey data from 46 medical learners were collected in 2015–2016. Separate one-way analysis of variances, with between-group factors of leadership experience (<12 months, >12 months, 0 month), were carried out on LDR constructs of ability and motivation using five validated measures: motivation to lead, goal orientation, developmental efficacy, self-awareness and metacognitive ability. Spearman’s rank-order correlations were used to examine the relationship between LDR and experience with leader efficacy and leadership behaviours (transformational and transactional). Statistical significance was determined at p<0.05. Bonferroni corrections were applied for any multiple comparisons. Results Significant main effects were observed for both ability and motivation to develop, showing lower scores on these variables for individuals with less leadership experience. Both experience and LDR constructs (motivation and ability) were shown to be significantly positively associated with transformational leadership behaviour (and not transactional leadership behaviour). The LDR constructs, but not leadership experience, were significantly positively associated with leader efficacy. Conclusions The positive correlation between LDR, experience, and transformational leadership behaviours and between LDR and leader efficacy is of value in leadership development. Understanding the developmental readiness of learners and how this affects leadership development is paramount to better inform personal leadership development and structure leadership development programmes for medical learners and physicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ LeaderSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207