MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

How much is enough? Proposing achievement thresholds for core EPAs of graduating medical students in Canada

2023· article· en· W6902159080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodEducational measurementProtocol (science)Set (abstract data type)Clinical PracticeObjective structured clinical examinationClass (philosophy)Tracking (education)Delphi

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition towards Competency-Based Medical Education at the Cumming School of Medicine was accelerated by the reduced clinical time caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to define a standard protocol for setting Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA) achievement thresholds and examine their feasibility within the clinical clerkship. Achievement thresholds for each of the 12 AFMC EPAs for graduating Canadian medical students were set by using sequential rounds of revision by three consecutive groups of stakeholders and evaluation experts. Structured communication was guided by a modified Delphi technique. The feasibility/consequence models of these EPAs were then assessed by tracking their completion by the graduating class of 2021. The threshold-setting process resulted in set EPA achievement levels ranging from 1 to 8 across the 12 AFMC EPAs. Estimates were stable after the first round for 9 of 12 EPAs. 96.27% of EPAs were successfully completed by clerkship students despite the shortened clinical period. Feasibility was predicted by the slowing rate of EPA accumulation overtime during the clerkship. The process described led to consensus on EPA achievement thresholds. Successful completion of the assigned thresholds was feasible within the shortened clerkship. Practice pointsThe modified Delphi technique is a feasible methodology that can be used to propose achievement thresholds for all 12 EPAs for graduating undergraduate medical students.Recommended achievement thresholds for each EPA ranged from 1 (e.g. ‘Participate in health quality improvement initiatives’) to 8 (e.g. ‘Obtain a history and perform a physical examination adapted to the patient’s clinical situation’). Practice points The modified Delphi technique is a feasible methodology that can be used to propose achievement thresholds for all 12 EPAs for graduating undergraduate medical students. Recommended achievement thresholds for each EPA ranged from 1 (e.g. ‘Participate in health quality improvement initiatives’) to 8 (e.g. ‘Obtain a history and perform a physical examination adapted to the patient’s clinical situation’).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→