The Effect of Foregrounding Intended Use on Observers’ Ratings and Comments in the Assessment of Clinical Competence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Some educational programs have adopted the premise that the same assessment can serve both formative and summative goals; however, how observers understand and integrate the intended uses of assessment may affect the way they execute the assessment task. The objective of this study was to explore the effect of foregrounding a different intended use (formative vs summative learner assessment) on observer contributions (ratings and comments). METHOD: In this randomized, experimental, between-groups, mixed-methods study (May-September 2017), participants observed 3 prerecorded clinical performances under formative or summative assessment conditions. Participants rated performances using a global rating tool and provided comments. Participants were then asked to reconsider their ratings from the alternative perspective (from which they were originally blinded). They received the opportunity to alter their ratings and comments and to provide rationales for their decision to change or preserve their original ratings and comments. Outcomes included participant-observers' comments, ratings, changes to each, and stated rationales for changing or preserving their contributions. RESULTS: Foregrounding different intended uses of assessment data for participant-observers did not result in differences in ratings, number or type of comments (both emphasized evaluative over constructive statements), or the ability to differentiate among performances. After adopting the alternative perspective, participant-observers made only small changes in ratings or comments. Participant-observers reported that they engage in the process in an evaluative manner despite different intended uses. CONCLUSIONS: Foregrounding different intended uses for assessments did not result in significant systematic differences in the assessment data generated. Observers provided more evaluative than constructive statements overall, regardless of the intended use of the assessment. Future research is needed to explore whether these results hold in social/workplace-based contexts and how they might affect learners.
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 | 0.129 | 0.416 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".