Factors associated with professional identity formation within psychiatry residency training: A longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Conceptual frameworks for professional identity (PI) formation highlight the importance of developmental stages and socialization as the learner progresses from legitimate peripheral to full participation. Based on extant literature and clinical impressions, the authors aimed to explore factors associated with PI formation in psychiatry residents over time, and hypothesized that time in training, seniority status, and duration of exposure to psychiatry prior to residency would be associated with PI formation. METHODS: Eighty out of 96 psychiatry residents (response rate, 83.3%) from the National Psychiatry Residency Program in Singapore participated and rated their PI development using the Professional Self Identity Questionnaire (PSIQ) across four timepoints from January 2016-December 2019. The residents were classified as junior (first 3 years) or senior residents (years 4-5). Linear mixed model analyses were conducted, with time in training, seniority status (junior versus senior residents), duration of psychiatry postings prior to residency, and their interaction as associated factors with PI over time. RESULTS: Time in training, seniority, and duration of psychiatry postings before residency (all p < 0.01) were significantly associated with higher PSIQ scores at baseline. Over time, although all residents had increases in PSIQ scores, this rate of change did not differ significantly between junior and senior residents. DISCUSSION: Exposure to psychiatry postings before residency, time in learning, and seniority are factors which influence PI development in residents. This has implications for psychiatry residency selection and training, adequate clinical exposure during training rotations, and continual support for new and senior residents to foster PI formation over time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".