学习者是否会在与同一住院医师的反复接触中进行偏见评分、委托决策和反馈?

IF 3.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
S Humphrey-Murto, Julie D'Aoust, Samantha Halman, Tammy Shaw, Vijay J Daniels, Lynfa Stroud, Irene Ma, Beth-Ann Cummings, Timothy J Wood
{"title":"学习者是否会在与同一住院医师的反复接触中进行偏见评分、委托决策和反馈?","authors":"S Humphrey-Murto, Julie D'Aoust, Samantha Halman, Tammy Shaw, Vijay J Daniels, Lynfa Stroud, Irene Ma, Beth-Ann Cummings, Timothy J Wood","doi":"10.1007/s10459-025-10460-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Learner Handover (LH) involves sharing information about learners between faculty supervisors, aligning with a growth mindset. Previous studies, however, demonstrate LH can bias subsequent ratings. Most of these studies collect ratings after a single encounter but faculty often have multiple interactions with learners potentially mitigating LH-related bias. This study explored if LH influences faculty ratings, entrustment decisions and feedback after observing several encounters of the same learner. Internal medicine faculty (n = 57) from five medical schools were randomly assigned to one of three study groups. Each group received either positive, negative or no LH prior to watching five simulated resident-patient encounter videos of the same white male resident. Participants rated each video using an entrustment scale, the Mini-CEX and provided written feedback. Feedback was assigned a valence score (-3 to + 3). There were no statistically significant differences between the mean ratings across the LH conditions (positive, control, negative) for entrustment [3.42, 3.26, 3.62], Mini-CEX [6.00, 5.90, 6.28] or feedback valence ratings [-0.34, -0.99, -0.74]. In the post-study questionnaire, most raters reported the LH had minimal effect on their decisions. Only 29% of raters guessed the true purpose of the study. Unlike previous studies, LH had no effect on ratings, entrustment decisions, or feedback after one encounter, nor over subsequent encounters with the same resident. These findings suggest LH's influence may vary and highlight the need for replication under different conditions, including diverse genders and equity-deserving groups, to identify factors that contribute to or mitigate bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does learner handover bias ratings, entrustment decisions, and feedback across repeated encounters with the same resident?\",\"authors\":\"S Humphrey-Murto, Julie D'Aoust, Samantha Halman, Tammy Shaw, Vijay J Daniels, Lynfa Stroud, Irene Ma, Beth-Ann Cummings, Timothy J Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10459-025-10460-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Learner Handover (LH) involves sharing information about learners between faculty supervisors, aligning with a growth mindset. Previous studies, however, demonstrate LH can bias subsequent ratings. Most of these studies collect ratings after a single encounter but faculty often have multiple interactions with learners potentially mitigating LH-related bias. This study explored if LH influences faculty ratings, entrustment decisions and feedback after observing several encounters of the same learner. Internal medicine faculty (n = 57) from five medical schools were randomly assigned to one of three study groups. Each group received either positive, negative or no LH prior to watching five simulated resident-patient encounter videos of the same white male resident. Participants rated each video using an entrustment scale, the Mini-CEX and provided written feedback. Feedback was assigned a valence score (-3 to + 3). There were no statistically significant differences between the mean ratings across the LH conditions (positive, control, negative) for entrustment [3.42, 3.26, 3.62], Mini-CEX [6.00, 5.90, 6.28] or feedback valence ratings [-0.34, -0.99, -0.74]. In the post-study questionnaire, most raters reported the LH had minimal effect on their decisions. Only 29% of raters guessed the true purpose of the study. Unlike previous studies, LH had no effect on ratings, entrustment decisions, or feedback after one encounter, nor over subsequent encounters with the same resident. These findings suggest LH's influence may vary and highlight the need for replication under different conditions, including diverse genders and equity-deserving groups, to identify factors that contribute to or mitigate bias.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-025-10460-5\",\"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://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-025-10460-5","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

学习者交接(LH)涉及在教师主管之间分享学习者的信息,与成长型思维保持一致。然而,先前的研究表明,LH可能会影响随后的评分。这些研究大多是在一次接触后收集评分,但教师经常与学习者进行多次互动,可能会减轻与lh相关的偏见。本研究通过观察同一学习者的多次接触,探讨了LH是否会影响教师评分、委托决策和反馈。来自五所医学院的内科教师(n = 57)被随机分配到三个研究组之一。在观看同一白人男性住院医生的五段模拟住院医生与病人接触的视频之前,每一组都接受了LH阳性、阴性或无LH。参与者使用委托量表Mini-CEX对每个视频进行评分,并提供书面反馈。反馈被分配一个效价评分(-3到+ 3)。在LH条件(阳性、对照、阴性)中,委托评分[3.42、3.26、3.62]、Mini-CEX评分[6.00、5.90、6.28]或反馈价评分[-0.34、-0.99、-0.74]的平均评分之间无统计学差异。在研究后的问卷调查中,大多数评分者报告说LH对他们的决定影响最小。只有29%的评分者猜测了这项研究的真正目的。与之前的研究不同,LH对评分、委托决策或一次会面后的反馈没有影响,对随后与同一位住院医生的会面也没有影响。这些发现表明,LH的影响可能会有所不同,并强调需要在不同的条件下进行复制,包括不同的性别和公平应得的群体,以确定导致或减轻偏见的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does learner handover bias ratings, entrustment decisions, and feedback across repeated encounters with the same resident?

Learner Handover (LH) involves sharing information about learners between faculty supervisors, aligning with a growth mindset. Previous studies, however, demonstrate LH can bias subsequent ratings. Most of these studies collect ratings after a single encounter but faculty often have multiple interactions with learners potentially mitigating LH-related bias. This study explored if LH influences faculty ratings, entrustment decisions and feedback after observing several encounters of the same learner. Internal medicine faculty (n = 57) from five medical schools were randomly assigned to one of three study groups. Each group received either positive, negative or no LH prior to watching five simulated resident-patient encounter videos of the same white male resident. Participants rated each video using an entrustment scale, the Mini-CEX and provided written feedback. Feedback was assigned a valence score (-3 to + 3). There were no statistically significant differences between the mean ratings across the LH conditions (positive, control, negative) for entrustment [3.42, 3.26, 3.62], Mini-CEX [6.00, 5.90, 6.28] or feedback valence ratings [-0.34, -0.99, -0.74]. In the post-study questionnaire, most raters reported the LH had minimal effect on their decisions. Only 29% of raters guessed the true purpose of the study. Unlike previous studies, LH had no effect on ratings, entrustment decisions, or feedback after one encounter, nor over subsequent encounters with the same resident. These findings suggest LH's influence may vary and highlight the need for replication under different conditions, including diverse genders and equity-deserving groups, to identify factors that contribute to or mitigate bias.

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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信