MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6963320296 · doi:10.18725/oparu-51761

Randomised controlled monocentric trial to compare the impact of using professional actors or peers for communication training in a competency-based inverted biochemistry classroom in preclinical medical education

2022· other· en· W6963320296 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOPen Access Repositorium der Universität Ulm (OPARU) (Ulm University) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaypersonCommunication skillsPeer groupSmall group learningCompetence (human resources)Quality (philosophy)Relevance (law)Communication skills trainingPeer reviewMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectiveIn medical education, biochemistry topics are usually knowledge based, and students often are unaware of their clinical relevance. To improve students’ awareness of the relevance, we integrated communication skills training into biochemistry education. No studies before have examined the difference between peer and standardised patient (SP) role plays where students explain the biochemical background of a disease in patient-centred language. Therefore, we evaluated whether students’ self-perceived competency in Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists (CanMEDS) roles and their opinion of the quality of role play differ if the layperson is played by peers or SPs.MethodsWe randomly assigned medical students in a preclinical semester to one of the two groups. The groups used predefined scripts to role play a physician–parent consultation with either a peer (peer group) or an SP (SP group) in the parent role. Students then assessed the activity’s effects on their competency in CanMEDS roles and motivation and the relevance of the role play. To determine whether students achieved biochemistry learning goals, we evaluated results of a biochemistry exam.ResultsStudents’ self-perceived competency improved in both groups. The SP group rated their competency in the roles ‘Scholar’ and ‘Professional’ significantly higher than the peer group did. The peer group rated their competency in the role of ‘Medical Expert’ significantly higher if they played the role of the parent rather than physician or observer. The SP group agreed more that they were motivated by the role play and wanted to receive more role play-based teaching. The SP group perceived the role play as being realistic and rated the feedback discussion as more beneficial. The examination results were the same in both groups.ConclusionWe showed that role plays in a biochemistry seminar improve students’ self-perceived competency. The use of SPs has some advantages, such as being more realistic.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0080.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOPen Access Repositorium der Universität Ulm (OPARU) (Ulm University)French-language works237,207