Investigating a self-scoring interview simulation for learning and assessment in the medical consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Catherine Bruen,1 Clarence Kreiter,2 Vincent Wade,3 Teresa Pawlikowska1 1Health Professions Education Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland; 2Department of Family Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA; 3School of Computer Science and Statistics, Faculty of Engineering, Mathematics and Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Abstract: Experience with simulated patients supports undergraduate learning of medical consultation skills. Adaptive simulations are being introduced into this environment. The authors investigate whether it can underpin valid and reliable assessment by conducting a generalizability analysis using IT data analytics from the interaction of medical students (in psychiatry) with adaptive simulations to explore the feasibility of adaptive simulations for supporting automated learning and assessment. The generalizability (G) study was focused on two clinically relevant variables: clinical decision points and communication skills. While the G study on the communication skills score yielded low levels of true score variance, the results produced by the decision points, indicating clinical decision-making and confirming user knowledge of the process of the Calgary–Cambridge model of consultation, produced reliability levels similar to what might be expected with rater-based scoring. The findings indicate that adaptive simulations have potential as a teaching and assessment tool for medical consultations. Keywords: medical education, simulation technology, competency assessment, generalizability theory
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 | 0.051 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".