When words are your scalpel, what and how information is exchanged may be differently salient to assessors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Variable assessments of learner performances can occur when different assessors determine different elements to be differently important or salient. How assessors determine the importance of performance elements has historically been thought to occur idiosyncratically and thus be amenable to assessor training interventions. More recently, a main source of variation found among assessors was two underlying factors that were differently emphasised: medical expertise and interpersonal skills. This gave legitimacy to the theory that different interpretations of the same performance may represent multiple truths. A faculty development activity introducing assessors to entrustable professional activities in which they estimated a learner's level of readiness for entrustment provided an opportunity to qualitatively explore assessor variation in the context of an interaction and in a setting in which interpersonal skills are highly valued. METHODS: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, we explored variation in assessment processes among a group of palliative medicine assessors who completed a simulated direct observation and assessment of the same learner interaction. RESULTS: Despite identifying similar learner strengths and areas for improvement, the estimated level of readiness for entrustment varied substantially among assessors. Those who estimated the learner as not yet ready for entrustment seemed to prioritise what information was exchanged and viewed missed information as performance gaps. Those who estimated the learner as ready for entrustment seemed to prioritise how information was exchanged and viewed the same missed information as personal style differences or appropriate clinical judgement. When presented with a summary, assessors expressed surprise and concern about the variation. CONCLUSION: A main source of variation among our assessors was the differential salience of performance elements that align with medical expertise and interpersonal skills. These data support the theory that when assessing an interaction, differential salience for these two factors may be an important and perhaps inevitable source of assessor variation.
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 | 0.032 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".