Professionalism assessment of clinical teachers as a role model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of present study was to evaluate the professionalism of clinical teachers in viewpoints of residents and undergraduate medical students. This is a descriptive-analytical study. The learners include medical externs, medical interns (undergraduate medical students) and residents (postgraduate learners) in the X University of Medical Sciences were entered by census. (n = 311). Faculty Professionalism Evaluation Questionnaire was used in this study. This questionnaire includes four domains: Doctor-patient relationship (6 items), Doctor-student relationship (3 items), interprofessional relationship (2 items) and doctor-self relationship (5 items). The content validity of the instrument was assessed by attending experts in medical education and clinical specialties (n=13) in the expert panel. Next, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the instrument was assessed. Confirmatory analysis has been analyzed using Amos version 24.0 software. In the descriptive step, data were analyzed using descriptive (mean, SD and median and relative percentage) and analytical (student t-test, ANOVA) tests. Results The participants include 126 medical externs (40.5%), 128 medical interns (41.2%) and 57 residents (18.3%). The mean age of participants was 26.43 years (13.18). The results showed the content validity of the instrument was approved by experts. The results of CFA showed the adequate fitness of the model. (GFI=.862,CFI=.912,TLI=.869). The total mean rating score per form (the total maximum rating is 48) given by students was 31.91(SD = 5.84) and ranged from 16 to 45, with a median rating score of 32. Total mean scores was 1.98(SD=0.36) ranged from 0.96 to 2.82. Conclusion The present results showed the professionalism scores of clinical teachers were evaluated at the moderate level in viewpoints of the learners. The results indicated the teachers were far from an ideal role model. Regards, the role of teachers in developing professionalism among learners, it is necessary to empower to play a desirable role model.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".