Development and Evaluation of the Script Concordance Test to Assess Veterinary Students on Equine Colic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The script concordance test (SCT) is an assessment method based on script theory, which can be used to assess some components of clinical reasoning. Clinical reasoning is challenging to assess, so the SCT was evaluated as a method of assessing clinical reasoning specifically around equine colic. A SCT was written on equine colic, using an expert panel of 15 equine veterinarians to help develop the test and formulate the scoring. Preclinical veterinary students (year 3 of 5) were recruited to take the SCT, followed by participation in focus groups on clinical reasoning in equine colic and their experience of the SCT. Twenty-four students undertook the SCT, of which 15 participated in focus groups. Final marking of the SCT gave expert panel scores from 27 to 40 out of 43 (mean 34.6 and SD 3.44). The students scored 17-32 (mean 24.9 and SD 4.59). The SCT was liked by the students and they felt the test required them to use clinical reasoning skills related to acute colic.
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 | 0.029 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".