PP17 Differential rater function over time (DRIFT) is not appreciated in paramedic raters using the global rating scale (GRS) during paramedic student simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The field of paramedicine continues to advance in scope. Simulation training is frequently used to teach and evaluate students. Simulation examinations are often evaluated using a standardized global rating scale (GRS) that is reliable and valid. However, the effects of differential rater function over time (DRIFT) have not been evaluated on the GRS during simulations. This study aimed to assess if DRIFT exists during a GRS. Methods Data was collected at Collège Boréal, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada during the 6 simulation evaluations within the scholastic year. Raters were randomly assigned to evaluate several students at the same station. Each station lasted 12-minutes in length and there was a total of 11-stations. A model to test the scores of DRIFT was created and was tested against both a leniency and perceptual model to explain DRIFT. Results Amongst the explored alternatives, a model that included students, the rater, and the dimensions had the greatest evidence (-3151 Bayes Factors). This model was then tested against leniency (K= -9.1 dHart) and perceptual models (K= -7.1 dHart) suggesting a substantial finding against DRIFT, however, the tested models used a wide parameter, therefore, the possibility of a minor effect is not fully excluded. Conclusion DRIFT was not found; however, further studies with multiple centres and longer evaluations should be conducted.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.085 | 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 teacher head, 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".