MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970977809 · doi:10.11157/fohpe.v20i2.321

Script concordance test examinations: Student perception and study approaches

2019· article· en· W2970977809 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Bacchi, Ian K. T. Tan, Ivana Chim, Matthew A Dabarno, Stuart Lubarsky, Paul Duggan

Bibliographic record

VenueFocus on Health Professional Education A Multi-Professional Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceConstruct (python library)Multiple choiceTest (biology)PsychologyConstruct validityMedical educationPerceptionPsychometricsMedicineClinical psychologyComputer scienceSignificant differenceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Script concordance test questions (SCTs) are a style of question that has been developed based upon the script theory of information storage and retrieval. SCTs use script theory to examine a clinical reasoning construct purported to be different from that assessed by multiple-choice questions (MCQs). Evidence regarding the construct validity of SCT is somewhat limited, but generally supportive. Methods: This project involved a content-matched MCQ and SCT practice examination delivered to senior medical students (n = 211) from a single institution with an accompanying survey regarding educational consequences of SCT and MCQ examinations. Results:Students’ responses differed significantly between how they would prepare for an MCQ examination as compared to an SCT examination. These differences were present in a number of areas, including greater focus on textbooks and use of websites for MCQ examination preparation (p < 0.001). Students reported that for an SCT examination they would benefit most from in-person teaching from local consultants involved in the process of SCT generation. Students felt that they would also benefit from further instruction regarding key elements of SCT technique, and from opportunities to provide written explanations of their reasoning during the exam. Conclusions:The results suggest that SCTs have educational consequences different from MCQs. Further research into the educational consequences of SCTs, and how these consequences may differ from that of other methods of assessment, is warranted.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFocus on Health Professional Education A Multi-Professional JournalSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207