Standardized Patient Practices: Initial Report on the Survey of US and Canadian Medical Schools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is currently a lack of information about the ways in which standardized patients (SPs) are used, how programs that facilitate their use are operated, the ways in which SP-based performance assessments are developed, and how assessment quality is assured. This survey research project was undertaken to describe the current practices of programs delivering SP-based instruction and/or assessment.Method: A structured interview of 61 individual SP programs affiliated with the Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) was conducted over a 7-month period. A web-based data entry system was used by the 11 trained interviewers.Results: The two most common reported uses of SPs were learner performance assessment (88% of respondents) and small-group instruction (84% of respondents). Fifty-four percent of programs hired 51-100 SPs annually and paid an average of $15 and $16 per hour for training time and portraying a case, respectively. The average reported number of permanent program employees, excluding SPs and temporary staff, was 4.8 (sd =3.6). The most frequently reported salary range was $30,001-$45,000.Conclusion: We intend for these preliminary results to inform the medical education community about the functions of SPs and the structures of programs that implement these complex educational endeavors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it