ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2020
Calibration Bias and the Interpretation of Clinical Learning Environment Perceptions Surveys.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical learning environment (CLE) is frequently assessed using perceptions surveys, such as the AAMC Graduation Questionnaire and ACGME Resident/Fellow Survey. However, these survey responses often capture subjective factors not directly related to the trainee's CLE experiences.
objectiveThe authors aimed to assess these subjective factors as "calibration bias" and show how it varies by health professions education discipline, and co-varies by program, patient-mix, and trainee factors.
methodsWe measured calibration bias using 2011-2017 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Learners' Perceptions Survey data to compare medical students and physician residents and fellows (n = 32 830) with nursing (n = 29 758) and allied and associated health (n = 27 092) trainees.
resultsCompared to their physician counterparts, nursing trainees (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22-1.40) and allied/associated health trainees (1.18, 1.12-1.24) tended to overrate their CLE experiences. Across disciplines, respondents tended to overrate CLEs when reporting 1 higher level (of 5) of psychological safety (3.62, 3.52-3.73), 1 SD more time in the CLE (1.05, 1.04-1.07), female gender (1.13, 1.10-1.16), 1 of 7 lower academic level (0.95, 1.04-1.07), and having seen the lowest tercile of patients for their respective discipline who lacked social support (1.16, 1.12-1.21) and had low income (1.05, 1.01-1.09), co-occurring addictions (1.06, 1.02-1.10), and mental illness (1.06, 1.02-1.10).
conclusionsAccounting for calibration bias when using perception survey scores is important to better understand physician trainees and the complex clinical learning environments in which they train.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.