Evaluating the Anesthesiology Residents’ Performance, Using a Modified 360-degree Assessment Questionnaire in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the recent decades, worldwide attentions were increased in many countries for example North America and Europe to evaluate physician’s performance and become a necessity. The purpose of this study was to translate and determine the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the 360-degree assessment for anesthesiology residents. It consists of different domains to measure the general capabilities including communication and interpersonal skills, professionalism and residents’ clinical care skills. Methods: In this study, we used the questionnaire developed by Calgary University in Canada for the psychometric features. All second and third year residents who were actively engaged in anesthetic induction and were in close contact with their professors were chosen. The raters included five groups of faculty members, operation room staff (senior anesthetic technicians and recovery room nurses), residents’ colleagues, patients and residents themselves (self-assessment). Results: Cronbach's alpha coefficient for each questionnaire was over 0.80. Regarding the construct validity, the correlation between the items constituting each domain and the domain itself was over 0.40. We found a statistically significant difference between the colleagues and patients’ viewpoints. Considering clinical care, we also found a statistically significant difference between the faculty members and patients’ viewpoints. No statistically significant difference was found between the raters’ viewpoints. Conclusion: The present study showed that the Persian version of 360-degree scale is a practical and effective assessment tool with proper reliability and validity to measure the residents’ competence. It is suggested to be applied in other specialties to get more definite results.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".