A scoping review of approaches for measuring ‘interdependent’ collaborative performances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Individual assessment disregards the team aspect of clinical work. Team assessment collapses the individual into the group. Neither is sufficient for medical education, where measures need to attend to the individual while also accounting for interactions with others. Valid and reliable measures of interdependence are critical within medical education given the collaborative manner in which patient care is provided. Medical education currently lacks a consistent approach to measuring the performance between individuals working together as part of larger healthcare team. This review's objective was to identify existing approaches to measuring this interdependence. METHODS: Following Arksey & O'Malley's methodology, we conducted a scoping review in 2018 and updated it to 2020. A search strategy involving five databases located >12 000 citations. At least two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, screened full texts (n = 161) and performed data extraction on twenty-seven included articles. Interviews were also conducted with key informants to check if any literature was missing and assess that our interpretations made sense. RESULTS: Eighteen of the twenty-seven articles were empirical; nine conceptual with an empirical illustration. Eighteen were quantitative; nine used mixed methods. The articles spanned five disciplines and various application contexts, from online learning to sports performance. Only two of the included articles were from the field of Medical Education. The articles conceptualised interdependence of a group, using theoretical constructs such as collaboration synergy; of a network, using constructs such as degree centrality; and of a dyad, using constructs such as synchrony. Both descriptive (eg social network analysis) and inferential (eg multi-level modelling) approaches were described. CONCLUSION: Efforts to measure interdependence are scarce and scattered across disciplines. Multiple theoretical concepts and inconsistent terminology may be limiting programmatic work. This review motivates the need for further study of measurement techniques, particularly those combining multiple approaches, to capture interdependence in medical education.
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 | 0.061 | 0.214 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.068 | 0.059 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".