通过认知和情感视角评估督导与受训人员对委托的观点:对反馈中的偏差进行人工智能调查。

IF 3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Advances in Health Sciences Education Pub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1007/s10459-024-10311-9
Brian C. Gin, Olle ten Cate, Patricia S. O’Sullivan, Christy Boscardin
{"title":"通过认知和情感视角评估督导与受训人员对委托的观点:对反馈中的偏差进行人工智能调查。","authors":"Brian C. Gin,&nbsp;Olle ten Cate,&nbsp;Patricia S. O’Sullivan,&nbsp;Christy Boscardin","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10311-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) compared to supervisors, while documenting higher entrustment ratings (+ 0.08 on a 1–4 scale, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). We also found biases tied to demographic characteristics: trainees’ documentation reflected more positive sentiment in the case of male trainees (+ 1.3%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) and of trainees underrepresented in medicine (UIM) (+ 1.3%, <i>p</i> &lt; 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 5","pages":"1571 - 1592"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10459-024-10311-9.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing supervisor versus trainee viewpoints of entrustment through cognitive and affective lenses: an artificial intelligence investigation of bias in feedback\",\"authors\":\"Brian C. Gin,&nbsp;Olle ten Cate,&nbsp;Patricia S. O’Sullivan,&nbsp;Christy Boscardin\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10459-024-10311-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) compared to supervisors, while documenting higher entrustment ratings (+ 0.08 on a 1–4 scale, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). We also found biases tied to demographic characteristics: trainees’ documentation reflected more positive sentiment in the case of male trainees (+ 1.3%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) and of trainees underrepresented in medicine (UIM) (+ 1.3%, <i>p</i> &lt; 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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\"29 5\",\"pages\":\"1571 - 1592\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10459-024-10311-9.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-024-10311-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-024-10311-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

委托框架将评估从仅考虑受训者的能力转向对其是否准备好独立完成临床任务的决策。由于受训人员和督导人员都对委托决策做出了贡献,因此我们研究了支撑他们进行信任协商的认知和情感因素,以及受训人员的人口统计特征是否会对这些因素产生偏差。我们采用文档分析方法,利用大型语言模型(LLMs)研究了医科学生受训者与其临床督导之间的反馈对话(N = 24,187 次,每次对话都有一个相关的委托评级)。通过确定定性主题并定量评估其与委托评级的相关性,我们比较了学员和督导如何对类似任务的反馈对话进行不同的记录。督导的主题主要反映了与患者陈述相关的技能,而学员的主题则更为宽泛,包括临床表现和个人素质。为了研究情感,我们训练了一名 LLM 来测量反馈情绪。平均而言,受训人员使用了更多的负面语言(正面情绪概率降低了 5.3%,p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
期刊最新文献
Social support and academic procrastination in health professions students: the serial mediating effect of intrinsic learning motivation and academic self-efficacy. To define or not to define: a commentary on 'The case for metacognitive reflection'. Team science in interdisciplinary health professions education research: a multi-institutional case study. Belonging in dual roles: exploring professional identity formation among disabled healthcare students and clinicians. Understanding simulation-based learning for health professions students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1