The universal interprofessional education Q tool (U-IPEQ) for student learning– a pilot trial in the human anatomical dissection space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional education (IPE) provides opportunities for health professional students from different disciplines to interact and foster effective collaborations in their future practices. Currently, various IPE evaluation tools are available for different healthcare settings, but many are limited to ceiling effects. Therefore, an universal IPE evaluation tool that describes students' unique perspectives within an IPE competency-based framework is necessary. METHODS: Students' IPE readiness and perceptions were measured before and after an 8-week human anatomy dissection elective. This elective is offered annually to students from seven health professional programs, where students meet weekly for 3-hours to discuss scopes of practice, clinical case scenarios and perform anatomical dissections of human donors. The Likert-based Readiness for Interprofessional Learning scale (RIPLS) and Interprofessional Education and Perception scale (IEPS) were administered before and after the elective. To address the ceiling effects seen in Likert scores, a Universal IPE Perceptions Q tool (U-IPEQ), informed by the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative Interprofessional Competency Framework, was created. U-IPEQ has 40 statements across four domains and responses were collected after the elective, using Q-methodology. RESULTS: A total of 24 from six disciplines and 15 students from seven disciplines completed the RIPLS and IEPS surveys before and after the elective, respectively. Twenty students from seven disciplines completed the U-IPEQ at the end of the elective. There were no statistically significant differences in the RIPLS and IEPS scores before and after the elective. However, the U-IPEQ revealed two distinct viewpoints: (1) IPE Knowledge experts; and (2) IPE Skill experts. CONCLUSIONS: The U-IPEQ was able to distinguish the differences in students' IPE learning priorities that were not obvious in the RIPLS and IEPS scores. Further refinement to U-IPEQ will be necessary to broaden its current applicability to other educational contexts.
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 | 0.029 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".