Team-Based Decision-Making in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of pre-licensure students' competency in team-based decision-making is lacking. The purposes of this study were to evaluate pre-licensure pharmacy students' competency in team-based decision-making in the context of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and to determine whether performance correlated with reflective assignment scores. Students' self-assessment and conceptualization of team-based decision-making in practice was also evaluated. Twenty-three pre-licensure pharmacy students' competency in team-based decision-making was evaluated in an OSCE station and with a reflective journal assignment; rubric scores for both evaluations were compared using Spearman's rank order analysis. Students completed an 18-item questionnaire regarding attitudes, confidence, and perceptions related to team-based decision-making. Descriptive statistics and construct analysis with open coding were used to analyse questionnaire results. Mean OSCE station and reflective journal scores were 45% and 66.3%, respectively, and were not correlated. Students' attitudes toward team-based decision-making were positive, and they reported performing associated behaviours during experiential education rotations. Students appropriately defined 'team-based decision-making' and were highly confident in performing related activities. However, students' conceptualization of team-based decision-making did not align with the pharmacy program's competency framework. Three key themes were identified through the study analyses: 1) student performance is dependent on assessment context when evaluating collaborator-related competencies; 2) there is a mismatch between students' perceived competency and objectively measured competence when collaborator outcomes were assessed within an OSCE; and 3) students' perceptions of team-based decision-making do not align with the program's competency framework. Future research is necessary to assess competency and perceptions of team-based decision-making in students from other healthcare professions, and to further evaluate whether pre-licensure students are "collaborative practice ready".
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".