Applying Coactivity Scales to Entrustable Professional Activity Assessments of Clerkship Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of applying coactivity scales to entrustable professional activity (EPA)-based assessments by comparing (1) the ratings of students performing EPAs with increasing levels of difficulty and (2) the ratings of cohorts of students performing the same EPAs over time. Clinical clerkships provide critical opportunities to evaluate medical student performance on Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Core EPAs for Entering Residency. However, there is no standardized method for assigning entrustability. 1 The AAMC proposes the use of the Modified Ottawa coactivity scale to anchor entrustability assessments. 2 We adapted a modified PRIME scale (professionalism, reporter, interpreter, and manager) to assign a developmental hierarchy to the EPAs. 3 To assess student skills in selected EPAs, we used the modified Ottawa coactivity scale, and assigned a value of 1–4 in order of increasing entrustability to anchors in the scale. Mean ratings of EPAs over time were calculated and compared. IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM, Armonk, New York) was used for descriptive analyses, ANOVA, and general linear models. A total of 2,623 evaluations (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.927) were completed for 247 medical students and showed a significant increase over time for professionalism (P = .011), reporter (P = .007), interpreter (P = .004), and manager (P = .007). EPAs with increasing intellectual demand were associated with lower student EPA ratings: 3.51 (±0.50) for professionalism, 3.45 (±0.47) for reporter, 3.35 (±0.59) for interpreter, and 3.28 (±0.60) for manager. The University of Miami EPA assessment tool provides a useful measure of student readiness for patient care. Raters entrusted students more with skills of professionalism, reporting, and interpreting than with managing, a more sophisticated skill. In every domain, entrustability increased with clinical experience. A limitation of this study is that the tool was used at a single institution. The tool can potentially be deployed across multiple clerkships at other medical schools as an effective and practical tool for medical student evaluation.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".