Development of Performance Rating Instruments for Ambulatory Women’s Health Procedural Skills in Family Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Women’s health procedures are essential services few family medicine (FM) residents provide upon graduation. Improving training and confirming these skills’ acquisition is crucial for safe health care delivery. Objective: The objective of this study was to develop and provide preliminary validity evidence for two performance rating instruments for intrauterine device insertion, endometrial biopsy, punch biopsy of the vulva, and routine pessary care. Study Design: Modified Delphi consensus and descriptive prospective study. Setting: Nine Canadian universities. Participants: Academic family physicians and gynaecologists. Instrument/Intervention: Procedure-specific checklists were developed based on empirical evidence and content expert opinion. Academic family physicians (n=12) and gynecologists (n=4)participated in a modified Delphi to finalize the items for the checklists. Consensus was defined as a priori. A previously validated global rating scale was modified to accommodate women’s health procedures in ambulatory settings. Academic family physicians (n=19) piloted the procedure-specific checklists and the global rating scales. They rated two videos (one first-year and one second-year FM resident) performing the four procedures while blinded to their level of training. They also evaluated the ease of use and acceptability of two instruments. Average scores for the procedure-specific checklists and the global rating scales for each procedure were calculated and correlated with the year of training for each procedure. Results: Consensus on items for the final checklists was reached after two rounds of a modified Delphi. Although Procedure-specific checklists’ scores did not correlate with the level of training, the global rating scales’ scores did. Both instruments received high average overall scores (31/36 ) for ease of use and acceptability for all four procedures. Conclusion: We designed performance rating instruments for four women’s health procedures and provided evidence for content validity through rigorous checklist development informed by the literature and a panel of Canadian experts. Piloting the instruments demonstrated validity for the response process, with raters describing the scales as easy to use and understand. The positive correlation of the global rating scale with training year provides preliminary data on validity for relation to other variables. These instruments may facilitate the training and assessment of FM residents.
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 | 0.065 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".