Only as Strong as the Weakest Link: Resident Perspectives on Entrustable Professional Activities and Their Impact on Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Core to competency-based medical education (CBME) is the use of frequent low-stakes workplace-based assessments. In the Canadian context, these observations of performance are framed around entrustable professional activities (EPAs). Objective We aimed to explore residents’ real-world perspectives of EPAs and their perceived impact on learning, because assessments perceived to be “inauthentic,” or not truly reflective of their lived experiences, may interfere with learning. Methods Using constructivist grounded theory, we conducted 18 semistructured interviews in 2021 with residents from all programs that had implemented CBME at one tertiary care academic center in Canada. Participants were recruited via email through respective program administrators. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively, and categories were identified using constant comparative analysis. Results Residents were strikingly polarized, perceiving EPAs as either a valuable opportunity for professional growth or as an onerous requirement that interfered with learning. Regardless of what view participants held, all perspectives were informed by: (1) the program administration and the perceived messaging from program to residents; (2) faculty assessors and their perceived degree of engagement, or “buy-in” with the EPA system; and ultimately (3) learner behavior. We theorized from these findings that all 3 aspects must be working in tandem for the assessment system to function as intended. Conclusions From the learners’ perspective, there exists a dynamic, interdependent relationship between the 3 CBME stakeholders. As such, the perceived value of the EPA assessment system can only be as strong as the weakest link in the chain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".