Assessment of Psychiatrists in Practice through Multisource Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the feasibility and evidence for the reliability and validity of a set of questionnaires for psychiatrists, given that multisource feedback (MSF) or 360° evaluation allows medical colleagues, coworkers, and patients to provide feedback about competencies to enhance physician improvement in intended directions. Method: Surveys with 40, 22, 38, and 37 items were developed to assess psychiatrists by 25 patients, 8 coworkers, 8 psychiatrist colleagues, and self, respectively, using a 5-point agreement scale with an unable-to-assess category. Items addressed key competencies related to communication skills, professionalism, collegiality, and self-management. Feasibility was assessed with response rates for each instrument. Validity was assessed with a table of specifications, the percentage of participants unable to assess the psychiatrist for each item, and exploratory factor analyses to determine which items grouped together into scales. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach's alpha and generalizability coefficients. Results: A sample of 101 psychiatrists provided data. A total of 2456 patients (24.32/25.00 per psychiatrist), 744 coworkers (7.37/8.00 per psychiatrist), 764 colleagues (7.56/8.00 per psychiatrist), and 101 self forms were analyzed. The overall internal consistency reliability of the instruments was a Cronbach's alpha of 0.98, 0.96, and 0.98 for patient, coworker, and medical colleague surveys, respectively. The generalizability coefficient for the patient, coworker, and medical colleague was 0.78, 0.82, and 0.81, respectively. Conclusion: It is possible to develop a feasible MSF program for psychiatrists with evidence of reliability and validity that can provide feedback about key clinical competencies. Objectif: Évaluer la faisabilité et les preuves de la fiabilité et de la validité d'un ensemble de questionnaires pour les psychiatres, étant donné que la rétroaction multi-sources (RMS) ou évaluation 360° permet aux collègues médicaux, aux collègues en général et aux patients de fournir une rétroaction sur les compétences, afin d'accroître l'amélioration du médecin dans des directions voulues. Méthode: Des questionnaires de 40, 22, 38, et 37 items ont été élaborés pour évaluer les psychiatres par 25 patients, 8 collègues, 8 psychiatres collègues, et les psychiatres eux-mêmes, respectivement, à l'aide d'une échelle d'accord pourvue d'une catégorie ≪ incapable d'évaluer ≫. Les items concernaient les compétences liées aux aptitudes à la communication, au professionnalisme, à la collégialité, et à l'autogestion. La faisabilité était évaluée par les taux de résponse à chaque instrument. La validité était évaluée par une table de spécifications, le pourcentage de participants incapables d'évaluer le psychiatre pour chaque item, et des analyses factorielles exploratoires pour déterminer quels items se regroupaient dans les échelles. La fiabilité était évaluée par le coefficient alpha de Cronbach et le coefficient de généralisabilité. Résultats: Un échantillon de 101 psychiatres a fourni des données. Un total de 2 456 patients (24,32/25 par psychiatre), 744 collègues psychiatres (7,37/8 par psychiatre), 764 collègues (7,56/8 par psychiatre), et 101 formulaires autodéclarés ont été analysés. La fiabilité de la cohésion interne générale des instruments était un alpha de Cronbach de 0,98, 0,96, et 0,98 pour les questionnaires des patients, des collègues et des collègues médicaux, respectivement. Le coefficient de généralisabilité pour les patients, collègues et collègues médicaux était de 0,78, 0,82, et 0,81, respectivement. Conclusion: Il est possible d'élaborer un programme de RMS faisable pour les psychiatres avec fiabilité et validité éprouvées, qui peut procurer une rétroaction sur les compétences cliniques fondamentales.
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 | 0.021 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".