Translation and transcultural adaptation of the Professional Mini-Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) for use on medical residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Introduction: Medical Professionalism refers to several attributes, values, behaviors, responsibilities and commitments of physicians in relation to their patients and society. Professionalism translates today as a new competence composed of the medical skill set that should be demonstrated, taught and evaluated during the training of these professionals. The Professionalism Mini-Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) is a medical professionalism evaluation tool created in Canada in 2006 and validated for use in Japan, Finland and Iran, having demonstrated its validity, reliability and reproducibility in these countries. Objective: The objective of this study is to develop a version of this instrument in Portuguese and adapt it transculturally to be used in Brazil. Method: The translation and transcultural adaptation was made according to the International Test Commission (ITC) - 2nd edition 2017 guidelines. The following steps were taken: translation into Portuguese by two fluent English-speaking Brazilian physicians, review of the translation by a Review Committee, backtranslation by two English teachers from English speaking countries, review of the backtranslation by a Review Committee, approval of the backtranslation by the original author of the questionnaire and, finally, application of the agreeded final form of the instrument to the target population to evaluate its clarity, understandability and acceptability. Results: The final Portuguese form was considered suitable, constituting the final Portuguese version of the Professionalism Mini-Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX). The entire process was conducted in accordance with classically used international guidelines, including the final approval of the author of the original form, reasserting that the validity of the new adapted version of the form matches that of the original. Conclusion: In view of the lack of instruments to measure medical professionalism in Brazil, translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the P-MEX for use in the country was carried out, to be used to stimulate a more appropriate professional practice for patients and society.
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".