A pilot study of a multi-source feedback process for hospital/healthcare- system pharmacists in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multisource feedback (MSF) is a promising tool for assessing healthcare professionals’ competencies, including pharmacists. Despite its potential, gaps remain in understanding pharmacists’ readiness for and the validity and reliability of the MSF process. This study investigated MSF’s application among hospital/healthcare-system pharmacists, evaluating its validity, reliability, feasibility, and acceptability. Participants (ratees) were hospital/healthcare-system pharmacists in Saskatchewan, Canada. They completed a self-assessment and recruited eight peer and eight non-peer raters (raters) to complete an assessment of them utilizing an online questionnaire. Ratees were provided with an anonymized collated report of their ratings and then participated in a facilitated discussion to review the report. Ratees and raters completed a survey to assess perceptions of the process’s validity, reliability, acceptability, and feasibility. Validity was assessed through multiple sources: content validity was supported by a focus group and literature review; construct validity was examined by comparing mean rating scores from ratees, peers, and non-peers with previous MSF studies; and response process validity was evaluated by analyzing the frequency of "unable to assess" responses. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha for peer and non-peer ratings, and free-text responses in the survey underwent structured tabular thematic analysis. Nine ratees completed the MSF process (response rate 2.5%). Recruiting the desired number of raters was a challenge; one out of nine participants recruited 16 raters. Despite these challenges, the MSF process demonstrated acceptable content, construct, and response process validity. Only one out of 18 questions had an "unable to assess" response rate greater than 20%, indicating strong response process validity. Internal validity was supported by Cronbach's alpha of 0.87 for non-peer and 0.89 for peer rating items. Ratees generally viewed the feedback as constructive, particularly regarding communication, collaboration, and professionalism competencies. The MSF process took a mean of 22 minutes for ratee self-assessment, 14.5 minutes for peer raters, and 10.3 minutes for non-peers; ratees and peers found the time burdensome, while non-peers did not. This study highlights the potential of MSF to enhance pharmacist competencies while identifying challenges prior to wider implementation Further research is recommended to strengthen MSF's impact on pharmacy practice and patient care.
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 | 0.034 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".