Tools for faculty assessment of interdisciplinary competencies of healthcare students: an integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, interprofessional teamwork is required for the effective delivery of public health services in primary healthcare settings. Interprofessional competencies should therefore be incorporated within all health and social service education programs. Educational innovation in the development of student-led clinics (SLC) provides a unique opportunity to assess and develop such competencies. However, a suitable assessment tool is needed to appropriately assess student progression and the successful acquisition of competencies. This study adopts an integrative review methodology to locate and review existing tools utilized by teaching faculty in the assessment of interprofessional competencies in pre-licensure healthcare students. A limited number of suitable assessment tools have been reported in the literature, as highlighted by the small number of studies included. Findings identify use of existing scales such as the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS) and the McMaster Ottawa Scale with Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter (TOSCE) tools plus a range of other approaches, including qualitative interviews and escape rooms. Further research and consensus are needed for the development of teaching and assessment tools appropriate for healthcare students. This is particularly important in the context of interprofessional, community-partnered public health and primary healthcare SLC learning but will be of relevance to health students in a broad range of clinical learning contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".