Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2024-07-29DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005749
David A Cook, Christopher R Stephenson
Purpose: Learner engagement is the energy learners exert to remain focused and motivated to learn. The Learner Engagement Instrument (LEI) was developed to measure learner engagement in a short continuing professional development (CPD) activity. The authors validated LEI scores using validity evidence of internal structure and relationships with other variables.
Method: Participants attended 1 of 4 CPD courses (1 in-person, 2 online livestreamed, and 1 either in-person or livestreamed) in 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2022. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine model fit for several alternative structural models, separately for each course. The authors also conducted a generalizability study to estimate score reliability. Associations were evaluated between LEI scores and Continuing Medical Education Teaching Effectiveness (CMETE) scores and participant demographics. Statistical methods accounted for repeated measures by participants.
Results: Four hundred fifteen unique participants attended 203 different CPD presentations and completed the LEI 11,567 times. The originally hypothesized 4-domain model of learner engagement (domains: emotional, behavioral, cognitive in-class, cognitive out-of-class) demonstrated best model fit in all 4 courses, with comparative fit index ≥ 0.99, standardized root mean square residual ≤ 0.031, and root mean square error of approximation ≤ 0.047. The reliability for overall scores and domain scores were all acceptable (50-rater G-coefficient ≥ 0.74) except for the cognitive in-class domain (50-rater G-coefficient of 0.55 to 0.66). Findings were similar for both in-person and online delivery modalities. Correlation of LEI scores with teaching effectiveness was confirmed (rho=0.58), and a small correlation was found with participant age (rho=0.19); other associations were small and not statistically significant. Using these findings, we generated a shortened 4-item instrument, the LEI Short Form.
Conclusions: This study confirms a 4-domain model of learner engagement and provides validity evidence that supports using LEI scores to measure learner engagement in both in-person and livestreamed CPD activities.
目的:学习者投入度是指学习者为保持学习的专注性和积极性而付出的精力。学习者参与度工具(LEI)是为了测量学习者在短期持续专业发展(CPD)活动中的参与度而开发的。作者利用内部结构的有效性证据以及与其他变量的关系对 LEI 分数进行了验证:参与者参加了 2018 年、2020 年、2021 年和 2022 年的 4 门 CPD 课程(1 门面授课程、2 门在线直播课程和 1 门面授或在线课程)中的 1 门。作者分别对每门课程进行了确认性因子分析,以检验几种可供选择的结构模型的模型拟合度。作者还进行了一项可推广性研究,以估算分数的可靠性。还评估了 LEI 分数与继续医学教育教学效果 (CMETE) 分数和学员人口统计学之间的关联。所有统计方法都考虑了参与者的重复测量:415名参与者参加了203场不同的继续医学教育讲座,完成了11,567次LEI。最初假设的学习者参与度 4 领域模型(领域:情感、行为、课内认知、课外认知)在所有 4 门课程中均表现出最佳模型拟合度,比较拟合指数≥0.99,标准化均方根残差≤0.031,均方根近似误差≤0.047。除课堂认知领域(50 人 G 系数为 0.55 至 0.66)外,总分和领域分的信度均可接受(50 人 G 系数≥ 0.74)。所有结果在面授和在线授课模式下都相似。LEI 分数与教学效果的相关性得到了证实(rho 0.58),与参与者年龄的相关性较小(rho 0.19);其他相关性较小,且无统计学意义。根据这些研究结果,我们制作了一个简短的 4 个项目的工具,即 LEI 简表:本研究证实了学习者参与度的 4 领域模型,并提供了有效性证据,支持使用 LEI 分数来衡量学习者在现场和直播 CPD 活动中的参与度。
{"title":"Validation of the Learner Engagement Instrument for Continuing Professional Development.","authors":"David A Cook, Christopher R Stephenson","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005749","DOIUrl":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005749","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Learner engagement is the energy learners exert to remain focused and motivated to learn. The Learner Engagement Instrument (LEI) was developed to measure learner engagement in a short continuing professional development (CPD) activity. The authors validated LEI scores using validity evidence of internal structure and relationships with other variables.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants attended 1 of 4 CPD courses (1 in-person, 2 online livestreamed, and 1 either in-person or livestreamed) in 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2022. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine model fit for several alternative structural models, separately for each course. The authors also conducted a generalizability study to estimate score reliability. Associations were evaluated between LEI scores and Continuing Medical Education Teaching Effectiveness (CMETE) scores and participant demographics. Statistical methods accounted for repeated measures by participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred fifteen unique participants attended 203 different CPD presentations and completed the LEI 11,567 times. The originally hypothesized 4-domain model of learner engagement (domains: emotional, behavioral, cognitive in-class, cognitive out-of-class) demonstrated best model fit in all 4 courses, with comparative fit index ≥ 0.99, standardized root mean square residual ≤ 0.031, and root mean square error of approximation ≤ 0.047. The reliability for overall scores and domain scores were all acceptable (50-rater G-coefficient ≥ 0.74) except for the cognitive in-class domain (50-rater G-coefficient of 0.55 to 0.66). Findings were similar for both in-person and online delivery modalities. Correlation of LEI scores with teaching effectiveness was confirmed (rho=0.58), and a small correlation was found with participant age (rho=0.19); other associations were small and not statistically significant. Using these findings, we generated a shortened 4-item instrument, the LEI Short Form.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study confirms a 4-domain model of learner engagement and provides validity evidence that supports using LEI scores to measure learner engagement in both in-person and livestreamed CPD activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140873570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2024-06-12DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005787
Gabriella Schmuter, Robert A Beale
{"title":"Engaging Learners With the Utility of Electronic Medical Record Templates in Patient Note Writing.","authors":"Gabriella Schmuter, Robert A Beale","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005787","DOIUrl":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005787","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141312215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2024-05-01DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005747
Capri P Alex, H Barrett Fromme, Larrie Greenberg, Michael S Ryan, Sarah Gustafson, Maya K Neeley, Shaughn Nunez, Molly E Rideout, Jessica VanNostrand, Nicola M Orlov
Purpose: Direct observation (DO) enables assessment of vital competencies, such as clinical skills. Despite national requirement that medical students experience DOs during each clerkship, the frequency, length, quality, and context of these DOs are not well established. This study examines the quality, quantity, and characteristics of DOs obtained during pediatrics clerkships across multiple institutions.
Method: This multimethod study was performed at 6 U.S.-based institutions from March to October 2022. In the qualitative phase, focus groups and/or semistructured interviews were conducted with third-year medical students at the conclusion of pediatrics clerkships. In the quantitative phase, the authors administered an internally developed instrument after focus group discussions or interviews. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis, and quantitative data were analyzed using anonymous survey responses.
Results: Seventy-three medical students participated in 20 focus groups, and 71 (97.3%) completed the survey. The authors identified 7 themes that were organized into key principles: before, during, and after DO. Most students reported their DOs were conducted primarily by residents (62 [87.3%]) rather than attendings (6 [8.4%]) in inpatient settings. Participants reported daily attending observation of clinical reasoning (38 [53.5%]), communication (39 [54.9%]), and presentation skills (58 [81.7%]). One-third reported they were never observed taking a history by an inpatient attending (23 [32.4%]), and one-quarter reported they were never observed performing a physical exam (18 [25.4%]).
Conclusions: This study revealed that students are not being assessed for performing vital clinical skills in the inpatient setting by attendings as frequently as previously believed. When observers set expectations, create a safe learning environment, and follow up with actionable feedback, medical students perceive the experience as valuable; however, the DO experience is currently suboptimal. Therefore, a high-quality, competency-based clinical education for medical students is necessary to directly drive future patient care by way of a competent physician workforce.
{"title":"Exploring Medical Student Experiences With Direct Observation During the Pediatric Clerkship.","authors":"Capri P Alex, H Barrett Fromme, Larrie Greenberg, Michael S Ryan, Sarah Gustafson, Maya K Neeley, Shaughn Nunez, Molly E Rideout, Jessica VanNostrand, Nicola M Orlov","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005747","DOIUrl":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005747","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Direct observation (DO) enables assessment of vital competencies, such as clinical skills. Despite national requirement that medical students experience DOs during each clerkship, the frequency, length, quality, and context of these DOs are not well established. This study examines the quality, quantity, and characteristics of DOs obtained during pediatrics clerkships across multiple institutions.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This multimethod study was performed at 6 U.S.-based institutions from March to October 2022. In the qualitative phase, focus groups and/or semistructured interviews were conducted with third-year medical students at the conclusion of pediatrics clerkships. In the quantitative phase, the authors administered an internally developed instrument after focus group discussions or interviews. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis, and quantitative data were analyzed using anonymous survey responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-three medical students participated in 20 focus groups, and 71 (97.3%) completed the survey. The authors identified 7 themes that were organized into key principles: before, during, and after DO. Most students reported their DOs were conducted primarily by residents (62 [87.3%]) rather than attendings (6 [8.4%]) in inpatient settings. Participants reported daily attending observation of clinical reasoning (38 [53.5%]), communication (39 [54.9%]), and presentation skills (58 [81.7%]). One-third reported they were never observed taking a history by an inpatient attending (23 [32.4%]), and one-quarter reported they were never observed performing a physical exam (18 [25.4%]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study revealed that students are not being assessed for performing vital clinical skills in the inpatient setting by attendings as frequently as previously believed. When observers set expectations, create a safe learning environment, and follow up with actionable feedback, medical students perceive the experience as valuable; however, the DO experience is currently suboptimal. Therefore, a high-quality, competency-based clinical education for medical students is necessary to directly drive future patient care by way of a competent physician workforce.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140861330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2024-03-14DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005690
Paulina Perez Mejias, Gustavo Lara, Alex Duran, Rashelle Musci, Nancy A Hueppchen, Roy C Ziegelstein, Pamela A Lipsett
Purpose: To determine whether students' self-reported race/ethnicity and sex were associated with grades earned in 7 core clerkships. A person-centered approach was used to group students based on observed clerkship grade patterns. Predictors of group membership and predictive bias by race/ethnicity and sex were investigated.
Method: Using data from 6 medical student cohorts at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSOM), latent class analysis was used to classify students based on clerkship grades. Multinomial logistic regression was employed to investigate if preclerkship measures and student demographic characteristics predicted clerkship performance-level groups. Marginal effects for United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 scores were obtained to assess the predictive validity of the test on group membership by race/ethnicity and sex. Predictive bias was examined by comparing multinomial logistic regression prediction errors across racial/ethnic groups.
Results: Three clerkship performance-level groups emerged from the data: low, middle, and high. Significant predictors of group membership were race/ethnicity, sex, and USMLE Step 1 scores. Black or African American students were more likely (odds ratio [OR] = 4.26) to be low performers than White students. Black or African American (OR = 0.08) and Asian students (OR = 0.41) were less likely to be high performers than White students. Female students (OR = 2.51) were more likely to be high performers than male students. Patterns of prediction errors observed across racial/ethnic groups showed predictive bias when using USMLE Step 1 scores to predict clerkship performance-level groups.
Conclusions: Disparities in clerkship grades associated with race/ethnicity were found among JHUSOM students, which persisted after controlling for USMLE Step 1 scores, sex, and other preclerkship performance measures. Differential predictive validity of USMLE Step 1 exam scores and systematic error predictions by race/ethnicity show predictive bias when using USMLE Step 1 scores to predict clerkship performance across racial/ethnic groups.
{"title":"Disparities in Medical School Clerkship Grades Associated With Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: A Person-Centered Approach.","authors":"Paulina Perez Mejias, Gustavo Lara, Alex Duran, Rashelle Musci, Nancy A Hueppchen, Roy C Ziegelstein, Pamela A Lipsett","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005690","DOIUrl":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005690","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine whether students' self-reported race/ethnicity and sex were associated with grades earned in 7 core clerkships. A person-centered approach was used to group students based on observed clerkship grade patterns. Predictors of group membership and predictive bias by race/ethnicity and sex were investigated.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using data from 6 medical student cohorts at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSOM), latent class analysis was used to classify students based on clerkship grades. Multinomial logistic regression was employed to investigate if preclerkship measures and student demographic characteristics predicted clerkship performance-level groups. Marginal effects for United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 scores were obtained to assess the predictive validity of the test on group membership by race/ethnicity and sex. Predictive bias was examined by comparing multinomial logistic regression prediction errors across racial/ethnic groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three clerkship performance-level groups emerged from the data: low, middle, and high. Significant predictors of group membership were race/ethnicity, sex, and USMLE Step 1 scores. Black or African American students were more likely (odds ratio [OR] = 4.26) to be low performers than White students. Black or African American (OR = 0.08) and Asian students (OR = 0.41) were less likely to be high performers than White students. Female students (OR = 2.51) were more likely to be high performers than male students. Patterns of prediction errors observed across racial/ethnic groups showed predictive bias when using USMLE Step 1 scores to predict clerkship performance-level groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Disparities in clerkship grades associated with race/ethnicity were found among JHUSOM students, which persisted after controlling for USMLE Step 1 scores, sex, and other preclerkship performance measures. Differential predictive validity of USMLE Step 1 exam scores and systematic error predictions by race/ethnicity show predictive bias when using USMLE Step 1 scores to predict clerkship performance across racial/ethnic groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140137492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2024-06-26DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005793
Gustavo A Patino, Laura Weiss Roberts
{"title":"The Need for Greater Transparency in Journal Submissions That Report Novel Machine Learning Models in Health Professions Education.","authors":"Gustavo A Patino, Laura Weiss Roberts","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005793","DOIUrl":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005793","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141460561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2023-05-25DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005280
Ross Gay
{"title":"To the Fig Tree on 9th and Christian.","authors":"Ross Gay","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005280","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142300184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2024-06-12DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005785
Nam S Danny Hoang
{"title":"Protecting and Learning From LGBTQ Students.","authors":"Nam S Danny Hoang","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005785","DOIUrl":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005785","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141312218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2024-06-17DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005791
Ghida El Banna, Sophia Neman, John Trinidad
{"title":"Significance of Adding a Separate Racial Checkbox for Middle Eastern and North African Patients.","authors":"Ghida El Banna, Sophia Neman, John Trinidad","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005791","DOIUrl":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005791","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142082501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2024-03-08DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005688
Saarang R Deshpande, Gina Lepore, Lily Wieland, Jennifer R Kogan
Purpose: Letters of recommendations (LORs) are key components of academic medicine applications. Given that bias against students and trainees underrepresented in medicine (UIM) has been demonstrated across assessment, achievement, and advancement domains, the authors reviewed studies on LORs to assess racial, ethnic, and UIM differences in LORs. Standardized LORs (SLORs), an increasingly common form of LORs, were also assessed for racial and ethnic differences.
Method: A systematic review was conducted for English-language studies that assessed racial or ethnic differences in LORs in academic medicine published from database inception to July 16, 2023. Studies evaluating SLORs underwent data abstraction to evaluate their impact on the given race or ethnicity comparison and outcome variables.
Results: Twenty-three studies describing 19,012 applicants and 41,925 LORs were included. Nineteen studies (82.6%) assessed LORs for residency, 4 (17.4%) assessed LORs for fellowship, and none evaluated employment or promotion. Fifteen of 17 studies (88.2%) assessing linguistic differences reported a significant difference in a particular race or ethnicity comparison. Of the 7 studies assessing agentic language (e.g., "strong," "confident"), 1 study found fewer agentic terms used for Black and Latinx applicants, and 1 study reported higher agency scores for Asian applicants and applicants of races other than White. There were mixed results for the use of communal and grindstone language in UIM and non-UIM comparisons. Among 6 studies, 4 (66.7%) reported that standout language (e.g., "exceptional," "outstanding") was less likely to be ascribed to UIM applicants. Doubt-raising language was more frequently used for UIM trainees. When SLORs and unstructured LORs were compared, fewer linguistic differences were found in SLORs.
Conclusions: There is a moderate bias against UIM candidates in the domains of linguistic differences, doubt-raising language, and topics discussed in LORs, which has implications for perceptions of competence and ability in the high-stakes residency and fellowship application process.
{"title":"Racial and Ethnic Bias in Letters of Recommendation in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Saarang R Deshpande, Gina Lepore, Lily Wieland, Jennifer R Kogan","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005688","DOIUrl":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005688","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Letters of recommendations (LORs) are key components of academic medicine applications. Given that bias against students and trainees underrepresented in medicine (UIM) has been demonstrated across assessment, achievement, and advancement domains, the authors reviewed studies on LORs to assess racial, ethnic, and UIM differences in LORs. Standardized LORs (SLORs), an increasingly common form of LORs, were also assessed for racial and ethnic differences.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic review was conducted for English-language studies that assessed racial or ethnic differences in LORs in academic medicine published from database inception to July 16, 2023. Studies evaluating SLORs underwent data abstraction to evaluate their impact on the given race or ethnicity comparison and outcome variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three studies describing 19,012 applicants and 41,925 LORs were included. Nineteen studies (82.6%) assessed LORs for residency, 4 (17.4%) assessed LORs for fellowship, and none evaluated employment or promotion. Fifteen of 17 studies (88.2%) assessing linguistic differences reported a significant difference in a particular race or ethnicity comparison. Of the 7 studies assessing agentic language (e.g., \"strong,\" \"confident\"), 1 study found fewer agentic terms used for Black and Latinx applicants, and 1 study reported higher agency scores for Asian applicants and applicants of races other than White. There were mixed results for the use of communal and grindstone language in UIM and non-UIM comparisons. Among 6 studies, 4 (66.7%) reported that standout language (e.g., \"exceptional,\" \"outstanding\") was less likely to be ascribed to UIM applicants. Doubt-raising language was more frequently used for UIM trainees. When SLORs and unstructured LORs were compared, fewer linguistic differences were found in SLORs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a moderate bias against UIM candidates in the domains of linguistic differences, doubt-raising language, and topics discussed in LORs, which has implications for perceptions of competence and ability in the high-stakes residency and fellowship application process.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140102804","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2024-03-13DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005700
Anton Boudreau Ninkov, Jason R Frank, Joseph A Costello, Anthony R Artino, Lauren A Maggio
Bibliometric network analysis is an analytical approach that enables researchers to visualize the relationships between a set of research items (e.g., journal articles, books). There are 3 types of bibliometric network analyses, and multiple tools to conduct the analysis and visualize results (e.g., VOSviewer , 1Gephi2 ). For health professions educators, bibliometric network analysis is valuable for discovering the field's emerging trends, popular topics, and multidisciplinary relationships. 3,4.
{"title":"Bibliometric Networks for Researchers in Health Professions Education.","authors":"Anton Boudreau Ninkov, Jason R Frank, Joseph A Costello, Anthony R Artino, Lauren A Maggio","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005700","DOIUrl":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005700","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bibliometric network analysis is an analytical approach that enables researchers to visualize the relationships between a set of research items (e.g., journal articles, books). There are 3 types of bibliometric network analyses, and multiple tools to conduct the analysis and visualize results (e.g., VOSviewer , 1Gephi2 ). For health professions educators, bibliometric network analysis is valuable for discovering the field's emerging trends, popular topics, and multidisciplinary relationships. 3,4.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140121271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}