Recommendations to address and research systemic bias in assessment: perspectives from directors of research in medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Addressing systemic bias in medical school assessment is an urgent task for medical education. This paper outlines recommendations on topic areas for further research on systemic bias, developed from a workshop discussion at the 2023 annual meeting of the Society of Directors of Research in Medical Education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During the workshop, directors engaged in small-group discussions on guidelines to address bias in assessment practices following a proposed categorization of 'Do's,' 'Don'ts,' and 'Don't knows' and listed their insights using anonymous sticky notes, which were shared and discussed with the larger group of participants. The authors performed a content analysis of the notes through deductive and inductive coding. We reviewed and discussed our analysis to reach consensus. RESULTS: The workshop included 31 participants from 28 institutions across the US and Canada, generating 51 unique notes. Participants identified 23 research areas in need of further study. The inductive analysis of proposed research areas revealed four main topics: 1) The role of interventions, including pre-medical academic interventions, medical-education interventions, assessment approaches, and wellness interventions; 2) Professional development, including the definition and assessment of professionalism and professional identity formation; 3) Context, including patient care and systemic influences; and 4) Research approaches. DISCUSSION: While limited to data from a single workshop, the results offered perspectives about areas for further research shared by a group of directors of medical education research units from diverse backgrounds. The workshop produced valuable insights into the need for more evidence-based interventions that promote more equitable assessment practices grounded in real-world situations and that attenuate the effects of bias.
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 | 0.502 | 0.537 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.056 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.047 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".