Assessment and Change: An Exploration of Documented Assessment Activities and Outcomes by Canadian Psychiatrists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada are required to participate in assessment activities for all new 5-year cycles beginning on or after January 2014 to meet the maintenance of certification program requirements. This study examined the assessment activities which psychiatrists reported in their maintenance of certification e-portfolios to determine the types and frequency of activities reported; the resultant learning, planned learning, and/or changes to the practice they planned or implemented; and the interrelationship between the types of assessment activities, learning that was affirmed or planned, and changes planned or implemented. METHODS: A total of 5000 entries from 2195 psychiatrists were examined. A thematic analysis drawing on the framework analysis was undertaken of the 2016 entries. RESULTS: There were 3841 entries for analysis; 1159 entries did not meet the criteria for assessment. The most commonly reported activities were self-assessment programs, feedback on teaching, regular performance reviews, and chart reviews. Less frequent were direct observation, peer supervision, and reviews by provincial medical regulatory authorities. In response to the data, psychiatrists affirmed that their practices were appropriate, identified gaps they intended to address, planned future learning, and/or planned or implemented changes. The assessment activities were internally or externally initiated and resulted in no or small changes (accommodations and adjustments) or redirections. DISCUSSION: Psychiatrists reported participating in a variety of assessment activities that resulted in variable impact on learning and change. The study underscores the need to ensure that assessments being undertaken are purposeful, relevant, and designed to enable identification of outcomes that impact practice.
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 | 0.020 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".