Competency Framework for Podiatric Medicine Training: A Validation Report Based on an Adapted E-Delphi Across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Competency-based medical education has been introduced into many health professional curricula. Based on CanMEDs, a framework has recently been developed for podiatric medicine education in Canada. This study aimed to validate the framework through a consensus of various podiatric medicine experts across Canada. METHODS: An adapted Delphi method was used for content validation. Two structured online questionnaires were used to gather expert opinions and agreement on the roles and core competencies described in the framework previously developed. The validation consensus threshold was set at a minimum of 80% agreement. The summary of comments and suggestions was used to reformulate certain items after the research team reached a consensus. RESULTS: Out of the 51 experts invited from the Canadian Podiatric Medicine Association, 19 completed the first-round questionnaire (mean podiatric experience = 24.5 years; standard deviation 17.6). After the first round, "Podiatric Expert", "Communicator" and "Scholar" roles have been modified. After these modifications, a consensus was obtained at the second round completed by 13 experts. Overall, 95% of the experts agreed that the competency framework was relevant even if some indicators would need to be adapted to suit the requirements of each province and territory. CONCLUSION: This validated framework supports the excellence and the quality of our podiatric educational program. It also promotes the adoption of a uniform education of podiatrists in Canada and worldwide.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".