MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121978394 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000003921

Generalizability of the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE) Scale to Assess Medical Student Performance on Core EPAs in the Workplace: Findings From One Institution

2021· article· en· W3121978394 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael S. Ryan, Alicia Richards, Robert A. Perera, Yoon Soo Park, J.K. Stringer, Elizabeth Waterhouse, Brieanne Dubinsky, Rebecca Khamishon, Sally A. Santen

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryFormative assessmentMedical educationScale (ratio)Summative assessmentEducational measurementMedicineReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyCurriculumPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Assessment of the Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency (Core EPAs) requires direct observation of learners in the workplace to support entrustment decisions. The purpose of this study was to examine the internal structure validity evidence of the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE) scale when used to assess medical student performance in the Core EPAs across clinical clerkships. METHOD: During the 2018-2019 academic year, the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine implemented a mobile-friendly, student-initiated workplace-based assessment (WBA) system to provide formative feedback for the Core EPAs across all clinical clerkships. Students were required to request a specified number of Core EPA assessments in each clerkship. A modified O-SCORE scale (1 = "I had to do" to 4 = "I needed to be in room just in case") was used to rate learner performance. Generalizability theory was applied to assess the generalizability (or reliability) of the assessments. Decision studies were then conducted to determine the number of assessments needed to achieve a reasonable reliability. RESULTS: A total of 10,680 WBAs were completed on 220 medical students. The majority of ratings were completed on EPA 1 (history and physical) (n = 3,129; 29%) and EPA 6 (oral presentation) (n = 2,830; 26%). Mean scores were similar (3.5-3.6 out of 4) across EPAs. Variance due to the student ranged from 3.5% to 8%, with the majority of the variation due to the rater (29.6%-50.3%) and other unexplained factors. A range of 25 to 63 assessments were required to achieve reasonable reliability (Phi > 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The O-SCORE demonstrated modest reliability when used across clerkships. These findings highlight specific challenges for implementing WBAs for the Core EPAs including the process for requesting WBAs, rater training, and application of the O-SCORE scale in medical student assessment.

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 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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207