ArticleCanadian medical education journal2021
The critical role of direct observation in entrustment decisions.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Construct Validity of Competencies: A Retrospective Analysis.Medical science educator · 2023Article
- Overcrowded curriculum is an impediment to change (Part B).Canadian medical education journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEntrustment decisions may be retrospective (based on past experiences with a trainee) or real-time (based on direct observation). We investigated judgments of entrustment based on assessor prior knowledge of candidates and based on systematic direct observation, conducted in an objective structured clinical exam (OSCE).
methodsSixteen faculty examiners provided 287 retrospective and real-time entrustment ratings of 16 cardiology trainees during OSCE stations in 2019 and 2020. Reliability and validity of these ratings were assessed by comparing correlations across stations as a measure of reliability, differences across postgraduate years as an index of construct validity, correlation to standardized in-training exam (ITE) as a measure of criterion validity, and reclassification of entrustment as a measure of consequential validity.
resultsBoth retrospective and real-time assessments were highly reliable (all intra-class correlations >0.86). Both increased with a year of postgraduate training. Real-time entrustment ratings were significantly correlated with standardized ITE scores; retrospective ratings were not. Real-time ratings explained 37% (2019) and 46% (2020) of variance in examination scores vs. 21% (2019) and 7% (2020) for retrospective ratings. Direct observation resulted in a different level of entrustment compared with retrospective ratings in 44% of cases (
conclusionsRatings based on direct observation made unique contributions to entrustment decisions.
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.