MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200333361 · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000001942

Virtual Objective Structured Clinical Examination Experiences and Performance in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency

2021· article· en· W4200333361 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical examinationObjective structured clinical examinationVirtual patientComponent (thermodynamics)RehabilitationMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Virtual education has been described before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies evaluating virtual objective structured clinical examinations with postgraduate learners are lacking. This study (1) evaluated the experiences of all participants in a virtual objective structured clinical examination and (2) assessed the validity and reliability of selected virtual objective structured clinical examination stations for skills in physical medicine and rehabilitation. METHODS: Convergent mixed-methods design was used. Participants included three physical medicine and rehabilitation residency programs holding a joint virtual objective structured clinical examination. Analysis included descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Performance of virtual to previous in-person objective structured clinical examination was compared using independent t tests. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 85%. No participants had previous experience with virtual objective structured clinical examination. Participants found the virtual objective structured clinical examination to be acceptable (79.4%), believable (84.4%), and valuable for learning (93.9%). No significant differences between in-person and virtual objective structured clinical examination scores was found for three-fourth stations and improved scores in one fourth. Four themes were identified: (1) virtual objective structured clinical examinations are better for communication stations; (2) significant organization is required to run a virtual objective structured clinical examination; (3) adaptations are required compared with in-person objective structured clinical examinations; and (4) virtual objective structured clinical examinations provide improved accessibility and useful practice for virtual clinical encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Utility of virtual objective structured clinical examinations as a component of a program of assessment should be carefully considered and may provide valuable learning opportunities going forward.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207