Emotions and assessment: considerations for rater-based judgements of entrustment

Assessing supervisor versus trainee viewpoints of entrustment through cognitive and affective lenses: an artificial intelligence investigation of bias in feedback

The entrustment framework redirects assessment from considering only trainees' competence to decision-making about their readiness to perform clinical tasks independently. Since trainees and supervisors both contribute to entrustment decisions, we examined the cognitive and affective factors that underly their negotiation of trust, and whether trainee demographic characteristics may bias them. Using a document analysis approach, we adapted large language models (LLMs) to examine feedback dialogs (N = 24,187, each with an associated entrustment rating) between medical student trainees and their clinical supervisors. We compared how trainees and supervisors differentially documented feedback dialogs about similar tasks by identifying qualitative themes and quantitatively assessing their correlation with entrustment ratings. Supervisors' themes predominantly reflected skills related to patient presentations, while trainees' themes were broader-including clinical performance and personal qualities. To examine affect, we trained an LLM to measure feedback sentiment. On average, trainees used more negative language (5.3% lower probability of positive sentiment, p < 0.05) compared to supervisors, while documenting higher entrustment ratings (+ 0.08 on a 1-4 scale, p < 0.05). We also found biases tied to demographic characteristics: trainees' documentation reflected more positive sentiment in the case of male trainees (+ 1.3%, p < 0.05) and of trainees underrepresented in medicine (UIM) (+ 1.3%, p < 0.05). Entrustment ratings did not appear to reflect these biases, neither when documented by trainee nor supervisor. As such, bias appeared to influence the emotive language trainees used to document entrustment more than the degree of entrustment they experienced. Mitigating these biases is nonetheless important because they may affect trainees' assimilation into their roles and formation of trusting relationships.

CARECOS study: Medical students' empathy as assessed with the CARE measure by examiners versus standardized patients during a formative Objective and Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) station

PURPOSE

To assess the Consultation And Relational Empathy (CARE) measure as a tool for examiners to assess medical students' empathy during Objective and Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), as the best tool for assessing empathy during OSCEs remains unknown.

METHODS

We first assessed the psychometric properties of the CARE measure, completed simultaneously by examiners and standardized patients (SP, either teachers - SPteacher - or civil society members - SPcivil society), for each student, at the end of an OSCE station. We then assessed the qualitative/quantitative agreement between examiners and SP.

RESULTS

We included 129 students, distributed in eight groups, four groups for each SP type. The CARE measure showed satisfactory psychometric properties in the context of the study but moderate, and even poor inter-rater reliability for some items. Considering paired observations, examiners scored lower than SPs (p < 0.001) regardless of the SP type. However, the difference in score was greater when the SP was a SPteacher rather than a SPcivil society (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Despite acceptable psychometric properties, inter-rater reliability of the CARE measure between examiners and SP was unsatisfactory. The choice of examiner as well as the type of SP seems critical to ensure a fair measure of empathy during OSCEs.

Comparison Between Surgical Trainee Self-Assessment With Supervisor Scores in Technical and Nontechnical Skills to Identify Underperforming Trainees

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare trainee self-assessment with supervisor assessment to identify differences in correlations of the demographic data and evaluate whether the instrument can be utilized to identify underperforming trainees.

DESIGN

A novel instrument was designed based off the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons original 9 competencies utilizing the JDocs framework and covers 48-items across all surgical competencies. A multiple regression model using age, gender, postgraduate year, IMG status, and level of training as the variables was performed with backwards elimination, and pairwise comparisons made to identify the degree and direction of influence each variable contributed to trainee and supervisor ratings.

SETTING

Surgical trainees employed in tertiary centers within the Australian Capital Territory and South-East New South Wales health network in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 36 of 59 (61%) trainees responded. Two grossly incomplete responses were excluded from further analysis resulting in 34 completed self-assessments for analysis. There was a total of 68 supervisor assessments provided by 25 different nominated supervisors. Of these assessments, 67 were fully completed and one was partially complete.

RESULTS

We identified that for both self-ratings and supervisor ratings, the most significant correlation is with the postgraduate year of the trainee, with correlation identified in 7 out of 9 competencies, although in different competency domains. International Medical Graduate status is associated in 2 of 9 self-ratings, and in 3 of 9 supervisor ratings. Underperforming trainees were able to be identified through supervisor assessment but not self-assessment.

CONCLUSION

The supervisor assessment form was able to identify underperforming trainees. Our findings resonate with existing literature in other specialty fields, and surgical units that employ assessment forms should feel more confident in the interpretation of the data and provision of feedback to trainees.

Evaluation Evolution: Designing Optimal Evaluations to Enhance Learning in Nephrology Fellowship

Evaluations serve as the backbone of any educational program and can be broadly divided into formative and summative evaluations. Formative evaluations are "just in time" evaluations focused on informing the learning process, whereas summative evaluations compare fellows to a preset standard to determine their readiness for unsupervised practice. In the nephrology fellowship programs, evaluations assess competence in the framework of ACGME Milestones 2.0. A variety of learning venues, evaluators, and tools should be incorporated into the measurement process. It is important to determine which milestones can be best assessed in each education venue to decrease the burden of assessment fatigue. Additionally, programs can diversify the evaluators to include nurses, medical students, peers, and program coordinators in addition to faculty to provide a well-rounded assessment of the fellows and share the assessment burden. Lastly, the evaluation data should be presented to fellows in a format where it can inform goal setting. The evaluation system needs to evolve along with the changes being made in curriculum design. This will help to make fellowship learning effective and efficient.

Validity evidence for the Quality of Assessment for Learning score: a quality metric for supervisor comments in Competency Based Medical Education

BACKGROUND

Competency based medical education (CBME) relies on supervisor narrative comments contained within entrustable professional activities (EPA) for programmatic assessment, but the quality of these supervisor comments is unassessed. There is validity evidence supporting the QuAL (Quality of Assessment for Learning) score for rating the usefulness of short narrative comments in direct observation.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to establish validity evidence for the QuAL score to rate the quality of supervisor narrative comments contained within an EPA by surveying the key end-users of EPA narrative comments: residents, academic advisors, and competence committee members.

METHODS

In 2020, the authors randomly selected 52 de-identified narrative comments from two emergency medicine EPA databases using purposeful sampling. Six collaborators (two residents, two academic advisors, and two competence committee members) were recruited from each of four EM Residency Programs (Saskatchewan, McMaster, Ottawa, and Calgary) to rate these comments with a utility score and the QuAL score. Correlation between utility and QuAL score were calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Sources of variance and reliability were calculated using a generalizability study.

RESULTS

All collaborators (n = 24) completed the full study. The QuAL score had a high positive correlation with the utility score amongst the residents (r = 0.80) and academic advisors (r = 0.75) and a moderately high correlation amongst competence committee members (r = 0.68). The generalizability study found that the major source of variance was the comment indicating the tool performs well across raters.

CONCLUSION

The QuAL score may serve as an outcome measure for program evaluation of supervisors, and as a resource for faculty development.

Concordance of Narrative Comments with Supervision Ratings Provided During Entrustable Professional Activity Assessments

BACKGROUND

Use of EPA-based entrustment-supervision ratings to determine a learner's readiness to assume patient care responsibilities is expanding.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we investigate the correlation between narrative comments and supervision ratings assigned during ad hoc assessments of medical students' performance of EPA tasks.

DESIGN

Data from assessments completed for students enrolled in the clerkship phase over 2 academic years were used to extract a stratified random sample of 100 narrative comments for review by an expert panel.

PARTICIPANTS

A review panel, comprised of faculty with specific expertise related to their roles within the EPA program, provided a "gold standard" supervision rating using the comments provided by the original assessor.

MAIN MEASURES

Interrater reliability (IRR) between members of review panel and correlation coefficients (CC) between expert ratings and supervision ratings from original assessors.

KEY RESULTS

IRR among members of the expert panel ranged from .536 for comments associated with focused history taking to .833 for complete physical exam. CC (Kendall's correlation coefficient W) between panel members' assignment of supervision ratings and the ratings provided by the original assessors for history taking, physical examination, and oral presentation comments were .668, .697, and .735 respectively. The supervision ratings of the expert panel had the highest degree of correlation with ratings provided during assessments done by master assessors, faculty trained to assess students across clinical contexts. Correlation between supervision ratings provided with the narrative comments at the time of observation and supervision ratings assigned by the expert panel differed by clinical discipline, perhaps reflecting the value placed on, and perhaps the comfort level with, assessment of the task in a given specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

To realize the full educational and catalytic effect of EPA assessments, assessors must apply established performance expectations and provide high-quality narrative comments aligned with the criteria.

Factors and Interactions Influencing Direct Observation: A Literature Review Guided by Activity Theory

PhenomenonEnsuring that future physicians are competent to practice medicine is necessary for high quality patient care and safety. The shift toward competency-based education has placed renewed emphasis on direct observation via workplace-based assessments in authentic patient care contexts. Despite this interest and multiple studies focused on improving direct observation, challenges regarding the objectivity of this assessment approach remain underexplored and unresolved. Approach: We conducted a literature review of direct observation in authentic patient contexts by systematically searching databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ERIC. Included studies comprised original research conducted in the patient care context with authentic patients, either as a live encounter or a video recording of an actual encounter, which focused on factors affecting the direct observation of undergraduate medical education (UME) or graduate medical education (GME) trainees. Because the patient care context adds factors that contribute to the cognitive load of the learner and of the clinician-observer we focused our question on such contexts, which are most useful in judgments about advancement to the next level of training or practice. We excluded articles or published abstracts not conducted in the patient care context (e.g., OSCEs) or those involving simulation, allied health professionals, or non-UME/GME trainees. We also excluded studies focused on end-of-rotation evaluations and in-training evaluation reports. We extracted key data from the studies and used Activity Theory as a lens to identify factors affecting these observations and the interactions between them. Activity Theory provides a framework to understand and analyze complex human activities, the systems in which people work, and the interactions or tensions between multiple associated factors. Findings: Nineteen articles were included in the analysis; 13 involved GME learners and 6 UME learners. Of the 19, six studies were set in the operating room and four in the Emergency department. Using Activity Theory, we discovered that while numerous studies focus on rater and tool influences, very few study the impact of social elements. These are the rules that govern how the activity happens, the environment and members of the community involved in the activity and how completion of the activity is divided up among the members of the community. Insights: Viewing direct observation via workplace-based assessment through the lens of Activity Theory may enable educators to implement curricular changes to improve direct observation of assessment. Activity Theory may allow researchers to design studies to focus on the identified underexplored interactions and influences in relation to direct observation.

How Teachers Adapt Their Cognitive Strategies When Using Entrustment Scales

PURPOSE

Rater cognition is a field of study focused on individual cognitive processes used by medical teachers when completing assessments. Much has been written about the role of rater cognition in the use of traditional assessment scales. Entrustment scales (ES) are becoming the tool of choice for workplace-based assessments. It is not known how moving to an entrustment framework may cause teachers to adapt their cognitive rating strategies. This study aimed to explore this gap by asking teachers to describe their thinking when making rating decisions using a validated ES.

METHOD

Using purposive sampling, family medicine teachers supervising obstetrical care were invited to participate in cognitive interviews. Teachers were interviewed between December 2018 and March 2019 using retrospective verbal protocol analysis. They were asked to describe their experiences of rating residents in the last 6 months using new ES. Constructivist grounded theory guided data collection and analysis. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed iteratively. A constant comparative approach was used to code and analyze the data until consensus was reached regarding emerging themes.

RESULTS

There was variability in how teachers used the ES. Faculty describe several ways in which they ultimately navigated the tool to say what they wanted to say. Four key themes emerged: (1) teachers interpreted the anchors differently based on their cognitive framework, (2) teachers differed in how they were able to cognitively shift away from traditional rating scales, (3) teachers struggled to limit assessments to a report on observed behavior, and (4) teachers contextualized their ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Variability in teachers' interpretation of learner performance persists in entrustment frameworks. Rater's individual cognitive strategies and how they observe, process, and integrate their thoughts into assessments form part of a rich picture of learner progress. These insights can be harnessed to contribute to decisions regarding readiness for unsupervised practice.

Exploring the use of rating scales with entrustment anchors in workplace-based assessment

PURPOSE

Competency-based medical education (CBME) has prompted widespread implementation of workplace-based assessment (WBA) tools using entrustment anchors. This study aimed to identify factors that influence faculty's rating choices immediately following assessment and explore their experiences using WBAs with entrustment anchors, specifically the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation scale.

METHOD

A convenience sample of 50 semi-structured interviews with Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians from a single Canadian hospital were conducted between July and August 2019. All interviews occurred within two hours of faculty completing a WBA of a trainee. Faculty were asked what they considered when rating the trainee's performance and whether they considered an alternate rating. Two team members independently analysed interview transcripts using conventional content analysis with line-by-line coding to identify themes.

RESULTS

Interviews captured interactions between 70% (26/37) of full-time EM faculty and 86% (19/22) of EM trainees. Faculty most commonly identified the amount of guidance the trainee required as influencing their rating. Other variables such as clinical context, trainee experience, past experiences with the trainee, perceived competence and confidence were also identified. While most faculty did not struggle to assign ratings, some had difficulty interpreting the language of entrustment anchors, being unsure whether their assessment should be retrospective or prospective in nature, and if/how the assessment should change whether they were 'in the room' or not.

CONCLUSIONS

By going to the frontline during WBA encounters, this study captured authentic and honest reflections from physicians immediately engaged in assessment using entrustment anchors. While many of the factors identified are consistent with previous retrospective work, we highlight how some faculty consider factors outside the prescribed approach and struggle with the language of entrustment anchors. These results further our understanding of 'in-the-moment' assessments using entrustment anchors and may facilitate effective faculty development regarding WBA in CBME.

Medical Education's Wicked Problem: Achieving Equity in Assessment for Medical Learners

Despite a lack of intent to discriminate, physicians educated in U.S. medical schools and residency programs often take actions that systematically disadvantage minority patients. The approach to assessment of learner performance in medical education can similarly disadvantage minority learners. The adoption of holistic admissions strategies to increase the diversity of medical training programs has not been accompanied by increases in diversity in honor societies, selective residency programs, medical specialties, and medical school faculty. These observations prompt justified concerns about structural and interpersonal bias in assessment. This manuscript characterizes equity in assessment as a "wicked problem" with inherent conflicts, uncertainty, dynamic tensions, and susceptibility to contextual influences. The authors review the underlying individual and structural causes of inequity in assessment. Using an organizational model, they propose strategies to achieve equity in assessment and drive institutional and systemic improvement based on clearly articulated principles. This model addresses the culture, systems, and assessment tools necessary to achieve equitable results that reflect stated principles. Three components of equity in assessment that can be measured and evaluated to confirm success include intrinsic equity (selection and design of assessment tools), contextual equity (the learning environment in which assessment occurs), and instrumental equity (uses of assessment data for learner advancement and selection and program evaluation). A research agenda to address these challenges and controversies and demonstrate reduction in bias and discrimination in medical education is presented.

Faculty and Resident Perspectives on Using Entrustment Anchors for Workplace-Based Assessment

BACKGROUND

Research suggests that workplace-based assessment (WBA) tools using entrustment anchors provide more reliable assessments than those using traditional anchors. There is a lack of evidence describing how and why entrustment anchors work.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to better understand the experience of residents and faculty with respect to traditional and entrustment anchors.

METHODS

We used constructivist grounded theory to guide data collection and analysis (March-December 2017) and semistructured interviews to gather reflections on anchors. Phase 1 involved residents and faculty (n = 12) who had only used assessment tools with traditional anchors. Phase 2 involved participants who had used tools with entrustment anchors (n = 10). Data were analyzed iteratively.

RESULTS

Participants expressed that the pragmatic language of entrustment anchors made WBA (1) concrete and justifiable; (2) transparent as they explicitly link clinical assessment and learning progress; and (3) align with training outcomes, enabling better feedback. Participants with no prior experience using entrustment anchors outlined contextual concerns regarding their use. Participants with experience described how they addressed these concerns. Participants expressed that entrustment anchors leave a gap in assessment information because they do not provide normative data.

CONCLUSIONS

Insights from this analysis contribute to a theoretical framework of benefits and challenges related to the adoption of entrustment anchors. This richer understanding of faculty and resident perspectives of entrustment anchors may assist WBA developers in creating more acceptable tools and inform the necessary faculty development initiatives that must accompany the use of these new WBA tools.  .