MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200167611 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004574

Operationalizing Programmatic Assessment: The CBME Programmatic Assessment Practice Guidelines

2021· article· en· W4200167611 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Rich, Ulemu Luhanga, Sue Fostaty Young, Natalie Wagner, Damon Dagnone, Sue Chamberlain, Laura April McEwen

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationFormative assessmentSummative assessmentStakeholderMedical educationCompetence (human resources)MedicinePsychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM: Assessing the development and achievement of competence requires multiple formative and summative assessment strategies and the coordinated efforts of trainees and faculty (who often serve in multiple roles, such as academic advisors, program directors, and competency committee members). Operationalizing programmatic assessment (PA) in competency-based medical education (CBME) requires comprehensive practice guidelines, written in accessible language with descriptions of stakeholder activities, to move assessment theory into practice and to help guide the trainees and faculty who enact PA. APPROACH: Informed by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) framework, the authors used a multiphase, multimethod approach to develop the CBME Programmatic Assessment Practice Guidelines (PA Guidelines). The 9 guidelines are organized by phases of assessment and include descriptions of stakeholder activities. A user guide provides a glossary of key terms and summarizes how the guidelines can be used by different stakeholder groups across postgraduate medical education (PGME) contexts. The 4 phases of guideline development, including internal stakeholder consultations and external expert review, occurred between August 2016 and March 2020. OUTCOMES: Local stakeholders and external experts agreed that the PA Guidelines hold potential for guiding initial operationalization and ongoing refinement of PA in CBME by individual stakeholders, residency programs, and PGME institutions. Since July 2020, the PA Guidelines have been used at Queen's University to inform faculty and resident development initiatives, including online CBME modules for faculty, workshops for academic advisors/competence committee members, and a guide that supports incoming residents' transition to CBME. NEXT STEPS: Research exploring the use of the PA Guidelines and user guide in multiple programs and institutions will gather further evidence of their acceptability and utility for guiding operationalization of PA in different contexts.

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)0.205
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.387
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2050.387
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0070.013
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.421 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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