Does learner handover bias ratings, entrustment decisions, and feedback across repeated encounters with the same resident?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learner Handover (LH) involves sharing information about learners between faculty supervisors, aligning with a growth mindset. Previous studies, however, demonstrate LH can bias subsequent ratings. Most of these studies collect ratings after a single encounter but faculty often have multiple interactions with learners potentially mitigating LH-related bias. This study explored if LH influences faculty ratings, entrustment decisions and feedback after observing several encounters of the same learner. Internal medicine faculty (n = 57) from five medical schools were randomly assigned to one of three study groups. Each group received either positive, negative or no LH prior to watching five simulated resident-patient encounter videos of the same white male resident. Participants rated each video using an entrustment scale, the Mini-CEX and provided written feedback. Feedback was assigned a valence score (-3 to + 3). There were no statistically significant differences between the mean ratings across the LH conditions (positive, control, negative) for entrustment [3.42, 3.26, 3.62], Mini-CEX [6.00, 5.90, 6.28] or feedback valence ratings [-0.34, -0.99, -0.74]. In the post-study questionnaire, most raters reported the LH had minimal effect on their decisions. Only 29% of raters guessed the true purpose of the study. Unlike previous studies, LH had no effect on ratings, entrustment decisions, or feedback after one encounter, nor over subsequent encounters with the same resident. These findings suggest LH's influence may vary and highlight the need for replication under different conditions, including diverse genders and equity-deserving groups, to identify factors that contribute to or mitigate 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 | 0.012 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".