Search

Self-efficacy is a personal belief in one's capability to successfully execute the behaviors necessary to attain designated types of performances. Sometimes described as task-specific self-confidence, self-efficacy is a key component in many contemporary theories of motivation and learning. The purpose of this study was to develop a survey for measuring students' medical skills self-efficacy and to collect reliability and validity evidence for the instrument. A secondary purpose was to explore differences in students' self-efficacy from year 1 of medical school to year 4. We created 19 survey items based on the 6 core competencies of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and we collected data from 304 medical students. Results from an exploratory factor analysis suggested three interpretable factors: patient care self-efficacy (eight items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.92), interpersonal skills self-efficacy (three items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.76), and evidence-based medicine self-efficacy (three items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.79). We then compared students' self-efficacy at different stages of training using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance. Consistent with our expectations, we found several statistically significant differences, suggesting students' self-efficacy increased considerably from year 1 of medical school to year 4, F(9, 725) = 30.58, p < 0.001, Wilks' lambda = 0.46. Using this survey, medical educators and researchers have a psychometrically sound tool for measuring students' medical skills self-efficacy during undergraduate medical education. Practical implications and future directions are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical reasoning is essential to medical practice, but because it entails internal mental processes, it is difficult to assess. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and think-aloud protocols may improve understanding of clinical reasoning as these methods can more directly assess these processes. The objective of our study was to use a combination of fMRI and think-aloud procedures to examine fMRI correlates of a leading theoretical model in clinical reasoning based on experimental findings to date: analytic (i.e., actively comparing and contrasting diagnostic entities) and nonanalytic (i.e., pattern recognition) reasoning. We hypothesized that there would be functional neuroimaging differences between analytic and nonanalytic reasoning theory.Methods: 17 board-certified experts in internal medicine answered and reflected on validated U.S. Medical Licensing Exam and American Board of Internal Medicine multiple-choice questions (easy and difficult) during an fMRI scan. This procedure was followed by completion of a formal think-aloud procedure.Results: fMRI findings provide some support for the presence of analytic and nonanalytic reasoning systems. Statistically significant activation of prefrontal cortex distinguished answering incorrectly versus correctly (p < 0.01), whereas activation of precuneus and midtemporal gyrus distinguished not guessing from guessing (p < 0.01).Conclusions: We found limited fMRI evidence to support analytic and nonanalytic reasoning theory, as our results indicate functional differences with correct vs. incorrect answers and guessing vs. not guessing. However, our findings did not suggest one consistent fMRI activation pattern of internal medicine expertise. This model of employing fMRI correlates offers opportunities to enhance our understanding of theory, as well as improve our teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning, a key outcome of medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between authenticity (how close to actual practice) of preclerkship instructional formats and preclerkship and clerkship outcome measures. A secondary purpose was to investigate the effect of student's small-group assignment during preclerkship period on instructional formats and preclerkship and clerkship outcome measurements.Methods: A prospective, randomized, crossover study was carried out with preclerkship students taking a clinical reasoning course. Students were randomized to small groups and exposed to three formats of differing instructional authenticity across three subject areas. Three student cohorts were taught using one instructional format per subject area with each cohort receiving a different instructional format for each of the three areas. Outcome measures at the end of the preclerkship year and the clerkship year were selected to determine the effect of each instructional format. Hierarchical linear modeling was performed to assess impact of format on outcomes and to assess potential group effect on outcomes.Results: Increasingly authentic instructional formats did not significantly improve clinical reasoning performance. Small-group assignment did not significantly contribute to the outcomes providing evidence that teacher training was successful.Conclusions: Increasing authenticity of instructional formats does not appear to significantly improve clinical reasoning performance. Faculty can be successfully trained to teach consistently in a clinical reasoning course. Medical educators should balance increasing authenticity with factors such as cognitive load and learner experience as well as engaging in frame-of-reference training to minimize group effects with designing new instructional formats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the association between tertiary reviewer (admissions committee member) comments and medical students' performance during medical school and into internship.Methods: We collected data from seven year-groups (1993-1999) and coded tertiary reviewer comments into 14 themes. We then conducted an exploratory factor analysis to reduce the dimensions of the themes (excluding the Overall impression theme). Subsequently, we performed Pearson correlation analyses and multiple linear regression analysis to examine the relationship between the factors and seven outcome measures: medical school preclinical grade point average (GPA), medical school clinical GPA, cumulative medical school GPA, U.S. Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 scores, and scores on a program director's evaluation measuring intern professionalism and expertise.Results: We extracted seven factors from the 13 themes and found small-to-moderate, significant correlations between the factors, the Overall impression theme, and the outcome measures. In particular, positive comments on Test and Maturity were associated with higher U.S. Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 scores. Negative comments on Interview and Recommendations were associated with lower ratings of professionalism during internship. Comments on Overall impression were significantly associated with all the outcome measures.Conclusions: Tertiary reviewer comments were weakly associated with performance in medical school and internship. Compared with positive comments, negative comments had stronger associations with medical school and internship performance measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are used at the majority of U.S. medical schools. Given the high resource demands with constructing and administering OSCEs, understanding how OSCEs relate to typical performance measures in medical school could help educators more effectively design curricula and evaluation to optimize student instruction and assessment.Purpose: To investigate the correlation between second-year and third-year OSCE scores, as well as the associations between OSCE scores and several other typical measures of students' medical school performance.Methods: We tracked the performance of a 5-year cohort (classes of 2007-2011). We studied the univariate correlations among OSCE scores, U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, and medical school grade point average. We also examined whether OSCE scores explained additional variance in the USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score beyond that explained by the Step 1 score.Results: The second- and third-year OSCE scores were weakly correlated. Neither second- nor third-year OSCE score was strongly correlated with USMLE scores or medical school grade point average.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that OSCEs capture a viewpoint that is different from typical assessment measures that largely reflect multiple choice questions; these results also support tenets of situated cognition theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unlabelled: The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU) houses the nation's only federal medical school, the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine. A key aspect of the curriculum at USU is leadership education as graduates go on to serve the Department of Defense through a variety of senior positions in the military. We surveyed a specific group of USU graduates who have achieved the rank of General or Admiral ("flag officers") to enhance our understanding of successful leadership for military physicians and to gain an understanding of how USU might shape its curriculum in the future.Methods: We sent an Internet-based survey to 13 flag officer graduates. The first section of the survey contained items from the multifactor leadership questionnaire-6S, a questionnaire with evidence of reliability and validity for evaluating leadership styles. The second section of the survey contained open-ended questions addressing key characteristics of an effective leader in the Military Health System, experiences that prepared them for leadership, USU's role in leadership positions, and advice for USU for better educating future leaders. The second section of the survey was coded using the constant comparative method.Results: Eight flag officers (63%) responded to the survey. They all scored highly on transformational leadership style. Qualitative themes reached saturation for each open-ended question. The flag officers identified characteristics consistent with published literature from other fields regarding effective leadership. They endorsed USU's role in achieving their leadership positions and suggested areas for improvement.Conclusions: Characteristics of effective leadership (transformational leadership style) identified by the flag officers surveyed in this study are consistent with the literature from other fields. These finding have important implications for leadership education at USU and potentially other institutions. The results also provide additional data to support the notion that USU is meeting its societal obligation to educate future leaders in military medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Each year military medical students participate in a separate, military match culminating with the Joint Services Graduate Medical Education Selection Board (JSGMESB). Prior studies have explored postinterview communication that occurs during the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), but not during the JSGMESB. We examined the frequency and nature of communication during the JSGMESB and compared it with the NRMP.Methods: Cross-sectional survey study of senior students conducted at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU) and seven civilian U.S. medical schools during March to May 2010. Respondents answered questions regarding communication with residency programs during the match.Results: Significantly fewer USU respondents communicated with programs compared with the civilian cohort (54.1% vs. 86.4%, p < 0.01). Specific inquiries regarding rank order were more commonly experienced by USU respondents compared with civilians (17.5% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.02). USU respondents found postinterview communication both helpful (41.3%) and stressful (41.3%). 11.1% of USU respondents indicated that they moved a program higher on their final rank lists because of further communication with these programs.Conclusions: Postinterview communication during the JSGMESB process is less common and less stressful than that reported in the NRMP. USU respondents are more likely to be asked directly about their rank list and occasionally do change their lists. Uniform guidance mirroring the NRMP's dealing with direct inquiries about rank lists could potentially improve the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Uniformed Services University's (USU) F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine was chartered in 1972, with the goal of providing high-quality physicians for the Uniformed Services. In exchange for their education, USU graduates incur an active duty service obligation, after which they may choose to stay on active duty or transition to civilian practice. The purpose of this study is to describe the practice characteristics of USU graduates after this obligation has been completed in order to determine the societal benefits during this phase of their careers. To accomplish this purpose, we performed a retrospective cohort study of the first 20 years of USU graduates (1980-1999). We used the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to determine the graduates' current practice location and characteristics, as well as their board certification status. Of these 2,760 graduates, nearly all (91%) were involved in active clinical practice in over 100 self-declared specialties, the vast majority (89%) practiced in locations other than the immediate vicinity of the medical school (i.e., Maryland and the District of Columbia), and most still worked for the federal government (71%). Finally, USU graduates in full-time clinical practice had a board certification rate of 93%, which was better than the average of all other graduates of U.S. Medical Schools (88%) in the same time period. Thus, it seems USU is attaining its goal of producing high-quality physicians who continue to benefit the nation after their service obligation has been completed, with many still in federal service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The United States is experiencing an accelerating physician shortage, especially within primary care. Medical educators are actively seeking ways to predict student specialty match and workforce requirements. Previous studies investigating specialty match have focused on factors known at the time of matriculation. This study examined whether third-year clerkship performance could be used to predict specialty match later in medical school.Method: The authors evaluated the clerkship performance of 802 students graduating from the Uniformed Services University between 2007 and 2011. They examined the relationship of students' clerkship grades and National Board of Medical Examiners' clinical subject examination scores to specialty match. In addition, the authors combined student performance in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics to create composite variables and assessed their associations with the match.Results: Among 802 students, 339 (42.4%) students matched to primary care specialties. There was a positive association between higher family medicine (Odds ratio [OR] 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05, 2.59), general surgery (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.22, 2.99), internal medicine (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.35, 3.49), and pediatrics (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.52, 4.43) clerkship grades and students matching into family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, and pediatrics, respectively. Only family medicine showed a weak correlation between higher National Board of Medical Examiners' scores and specialty match.Conclusions: Higher clerkship performance in four of six Uniformed Services University third-year clerkships is associated with matching into the corresponding specialty. Clerkship performance provides a potential tool for educators in counseling students and predicting future specialty match. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the relationship between self-reported research experience and medical students' performance in medical school and internship.Methods: We collected data from seven year-groups (1993-1999; N = 1,112) and examined 7 performance outcomes: medical school preclinical grade point average (GPA), medical school clinical GPA, cumulative medical school GPA, U.S. Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 scores, and scores on a previously validated program director's survey of intern professionalism and expertise. We then conducted a series of multiple linear regressions to determine the relations between self-reported research experience and our seven outcomes.Results: When compared to those who reported no prior research experience, students who reported research experience performed significantly better on U.S. Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and had a higher medical school preclinical GPA. However, these same students scored significantly lower on intern professionalism and expertise ratings. Self-reported research experience did not show statistically significant correlations with the other outcome variables.Conclusions: The results from our large, multiyear, cohort study suggest that prior research experience may account for some variance in outcomes in the early stages of medical school education, but that variance explained diminishes considerably as trainees progress into the more senior phases of education. On the other hand, prior research experience may be negatively related to students' performance in internship. In all cases, however, effect sizes are small. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Black women in academic medicine experience racial and gender discrimination, all while being tasked with improving a flawed system. Representation of Black women in medicine remains low, yet they bear the burden of fostering diversity and mentoring trainees, exacerbating their minority tax and emotional labor, and negatively impacting career progression., Objective: To complement qualitative accounts of Black women authors in the medical education literature with a quantitative account of their representation. We used statistical modeling to estimate the representation of Black women authors in medical education publishing as compared to other groups., Design: An intersectional methodology employing bibliometric analysis and testimonio reflection., Subjects: US-based authors of journal articles published in medical education journals between 2000 and 2020., Main Measures: Author race was determined using a probability-based algorithm incorporating US Census data, and author gender was ascribed using Social Security Administration records. We conducted two negative binomial generalized linear models by first and last author publications. Metadata for each article was retrieved from Web of Science and PubMed to include author names, country of institutional affiliation, and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Results were contextualized via the "testimonio" account of a Black woman author., Key Results: Of 21,945 unique authors, Black women (and other racially minoritized groups) published far fewer first and last author papers than white women and men. In addition, major MeSH terms used by Black women authors reveal little overlap with highly ranked medical education topics. The testimonio further narrated struggles with belonging and racial identity., Conclusion: This study revealed that Black women are underrepresented in medical education publishing. We believe that dismantling oppressive structures in the publishing ecosystem and the field is imperative for achieving equity. Additionally, further experiential accounts are needed to contextualize this quantitative account and understand underrepresentation in medical education publishing., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Introduction: COVID-19 changed scholarly publishing. Yet, its impact on medical education publishing is unstudied. Because journal articles and their corresponding publication timelines can influence academic success, the field needs updated publication timelines to set evidence-based expectations for academic productivity. This study attempts to answer the following research questions: did publication timelines significantly change around the time of COVID-19 and, if so, how?, Methods: We conducted a bibliometric study; our sample included articles published between January 2018, and December 2022, that appeared in the Medical Education Journals List-24 (MEJ-24). We clustered articles into three time-based groups (pre-COVID, COVID-overlap, and COVID-endemic), and two subject-based groups (about COVID-19 and not about COVID-19). We downloaded each article's metadata from the National Library of Medicine and analyzed data using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and post-hoc tests to compare mean time differences across groups., Results: Overall, time to publish averaged 300.8 days ( SD = 200.8). One-way between-groups ANOVA showed significant differences between the three time-based groups F (2, 7473) = 2150.7, p < .001. The post-hoc comparisons indicated that COVID-overlap articles took significantly longer ( n = 1470, M = 539; SD = 210.6) as compared to pre-COVID ( n = 1281; M = 302; SD = 172.5) and COVID-endemic articles ( n = 4725; M = 226; SD = 136.5). Notably, COVID-endemic articles were published in significantly less time than pre-pandemic articles, p < .001., Discussion: Longer publication time was most pronounced for COVID-overlap articles. Publication timelines for COVID-endemic articles have shortened. Future research should explore how the shift in publication timelines has shaped medical education scholarship., Competing Interests: Lauren A. Maggio is Deputy Editor in Chief for Perspectives on Medical Education. She was removed from all editorial processes relating to the handling of this submission. The authors have no additional competing interests to declare., (Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s).)

In this paper, we present a set of recommendations for using social media as a tool for participant recruitment in survey-based medical education research. Drawing from a limited but growing body of literature, we discuss the opportunities and challenges inherent to social media recruitment. This article builds on the authors' previous educator's blueprints about survey design and administration. We highlight the advantages of social media, including its wide reach, cost-effectiveness, and capability to access diverse and geographically dispersed populations, which can significantly enhance the representativeness of research samples. However, we also caution against potential pitfalls, such as ethical concerns, sampling bias, and the fluid nature of social media platforms. Our recommendations are informed by both empirical evidence and best practices, aiming to provide researchers with practical advice for effectively leveraging social media in survey-based medical education research. We emphasize the importance of selecting suitable platforms and engaging with targeted demographics thoughtfully. By sharing our insights, we hope to assist fellow medical education researchers in navigating the complexities of social media recruitment, thereby enriching the quality and impact of survey-based research in this field., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Purpose: A preprint is a version of a research manuscript posted to a preprint server prior to peer review. Preprints enable authors to quickly and openly share research, afford opportunities for expedient feedback, and enable immediate listing of research on grant and promotion applications. In medical education, most journals welcome preprints, which suggests that preprints play a role in the field's discourse. Yet, little is known about medical education preprints, including author characteristics, preprint use, and ultimate publication status. This study provides an overview of preprints in medical education to better understand their role in the field's discourse., Method: The authors queried medRxiv, a preprint repository, to identify preprints categorized as "medical education" and downloaded related metadata. CrossRef was queried to gather information on preprints later published in journals. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics., Results: Between 2019 and 2022, 204 preprints were classified in medRxiv as "medical education," with most deposited in 2021 (n = 76; 37.3%). On average, preprint full-texts were downloaded 1,875.2 times, and all were promoted on social media. Preprints were authored, on average, by 5.9 authors. Corresponding authors were based in 41 countries, with 45.6% in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Almost half (n = 101; 49.5%) became published articles in predominantly peer-reviewed journals. Preprints appeared in 65 peer-reviewed journals, with BMC Medical Education (n = 9; 8.9%) most represented., Conclusions: Medical education research is being deposited as preprints, which are promoted, heavily accessed, and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals, including medical education journals. Considering the benefits of preprints and the slowness of medical education publishing, it is likely that preprint depositing will increase and preprints will be integrated into the field's discourse. The authors propose next steps to facilitate responsible and effective creation and use of preprints., (Copyright © 2024 Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.)

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., (Copyright © 2024 the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Abstract: What constitutes evidence, what value evidence has, and how the needs of knowledge producers and those who consume this knowledge might be better aligned are questions that continue to challenge the health sciences. In health professions education (HPE), debates on these questions have ebbed and flowed with little sense of resolution or progress. In this article, the authors explore whether there is a problem with evidence in HPE using thought experiments anchored in Argyris' learning loops framework.From a single-loop perspective ("How are we doing?"), there may be many problems with evidence in HPE, but little is known about how research evidence is being used in practice and policy. A double-loop perspective ("Could we do better?") suggests expectations of knowledge producers and knowledge consumers might be too high, which suggests more system-wide approaches to evidence-informed practice in HPE are needed. A triple-loop perspective ("Are we asking the right questions?") highlights misalignments between the dynamics of research and decision-making, such that scholarly inquiry may be better approached as a way of advancing broader conversations, rather than contributing to specific decision-making processes.The authors ask knowledge producers and consumers to be more attentive to the translation from knowledge to evidence. They also argue for more systematic tracking and audit of how research knowledge is used as evidence. Given that research does not always have to serve practical purposes or address the problems of a particular program or institution, the relationship between knowledge and evidence should be understood in terms of changing conversations and influencing decisions., (Copyright © 2024 Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.)

Purpose: This study presents the steps taken to develop and collect initial validity evidence for the Shame Frequency Questionnaire in Medical Students., Method: The instrument was based on a 7-step survey design; validity evidence was collected from content, response process, internal structure, and relationship to other variables. A literature review and qualitative interviews led to the design of the initial 16-item scale. Expert review and cognitive interviewing led to minor modifications in the original structure. Initial pilot testing was conducted in August 2019 in Uniformed Services University (USU) medical students; reliability assessment and exploratory factor analysis were performed. The revised 12-item scale was tested in January 2022 in Duke University School of Medicine medical students; reliability assessment, exploratory factor analysis, and correlation analysis with depression, burnout, anxiety, emotional thriving, and emotional well-being were performed., Results: A total of 336 of 678 USU students (50%) and 106 of 522 Duke students (20%) completed the survey. Initial exploratory factor analysis of the USU data revealed 1 factor (shame), and 4 items were dropped from the scale according to predefined rules. Subsequent exploratory factor analysis of the Duke data revealed 1 factor; no further items were removed according to predefined rules. Internal consistent reliability was 0.95, and all interitem correlations were less than 0.85 for USU and Duke samples. As predicted, mean shame scale scores were positively correlated with anxiety ( r = 0.54, P < .001), burnout ( r = 0.50, P < .001), and depression ( r = 0.47, P < .001) and negatively correlated with emotional thriving ( r = -0.46, P < .001) and emotional recovery ( r = -0.46, P < .001)., Conclusions: The Shame Frequency Questionnaire in Medical Students is a psychometrically sound instrument with strong internal reliability and multisource validity evidence, supporting its use in studying shame in medical students., (Copyright © 2024 Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.)

As the complexity ofmedical knowledge and clinical practice continues to grow, physicians and physicians-intrainingmust learn to identify gaps in their knowledge and understand and engage in self-directed learning (SDL) in pursuit of academic goals and improved clinical performance. There is a lack of consensus, however, on the precise definition of SDL and how it relates to self-regulated learning (SRL) and co-regulated learning (CRL). We propose a conceptual framework for understanding the progression of a self-directed learner in the health professions and describe the interplay of SRL and CRL., (Copyright © 2023 the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Evidence-informed data may help students matching into competitive residency programs guide curricular activities, extracurricular activities, and residency career choices. We aimed to examine the characteristics of students applying to competitive surgical residencies and identify predictors of matching success. We identified the five lowest match rates for the surgical subspecialities listed in the 2020 National Resident Matching Program report to define a surgical residency as competitive. We analyzed a database from 115 United States medical schools regarding application data from 2017 to 2020. Multilevel logistic regression was used to determine predictors of matching. Statistical significance was set at p  < 0.05.A total of 1,448 medical students submitted 25,549 applications. The five most competitive specialties included were plastic surgery ( N  = 172), otolaryngology ( N  = 342), neurological surgery ( N  = 163), vascular surgery ( N  = 52), orthopedic surgery ( N  = 679), and thoracic surgery ( N  = 40). We found that medical students with a geographical connection (adjusted OR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.41 to 1.93]), and students who did an away rotation at the applied program (adjusted OR, 3.22 [95% CI, 2.75 to 3.78]) had statistically significantly increased odds of matching into a competitive surgical specialty. Furthermore, we found that students with a United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score below 230 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) score below 240 had increased odds of matching if they completed an away rotation at the applied program. Completing an away rotation and geographical connection to the institution may contribute more than academic criteria for selection into a competitive surgical residency after an interview. This finding may be due to less variation in academic criteria among this pool of high-performing medical students. Students with limited resources who apply to a competitive surgical specialty may be at a disadvantage given the financial burden of an away rotation.

Introduction: Self-regulated learning is a cyclical process of forethought, performance, and self-reflection that has been used as an assessment tool in medical education. No prior studies have evaluated SRL processes for answering multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and most evaluated one or two iterations of a non-MCQ task. SRL assessment during MCQs may elucidate reasons why learners are successful or not on these questions that are encountered repeatedly during medical education., Methods: Internal medicine clerkship students at three institutions participated in a SRL microanalytic protocol that targeted strategic planning, metacognitive monitoring, causal attributions, and adaptive inferences across seven MCQs. Responses were transcribed and coded according to previously published methods for microanalytic protocols., Results: Forty-four students participated. In the forethought phase, students commonly endorsed prioritizing relevant features as their diagnostic strategy (n = 20, 45%) but few mentioned higher-order diagnostic reasoning processes such as integrating clinical information (n = 5, 11%) or comparing/contrasting diagnoses (n = 0, 0%). However, in the performance phase, students' metacognitive processes included high frequencies of integration (n = 38, 86%) and comparing/contrasting (n = 24, 55%). In the self-reflection phase, 93% (n = 41) of students faulted their management reasoning and 84% (n = 37) made negative references to their abilities. Less than 10% (n = 4) of students indicated that they would adapt their diagnostic reasoning process for these questions., Discussion: This study describes in detail student self-regulatory processes during MCQs. We found that students engaged in higher-order diagnostic reasoning processes but were not explicit about it and seldom reflected critically on these processes after selecting an incorrect answer. Self-reflections focused almost exclusively on management reasoning and negative references to abilities which may decrease self-efficacy. Encouraging students to identify and evaluate diagnostic reasoning processes and make attributions to controllable factors may improve performance., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s).)

In this paper, we take the lessons learned from designing a survey and collecting validity evidence and prepare to administer the survey for research. We focus specifically on how researchers can reach individuals in the target population, methods of contact and engagement, evidence-informed factors that enhance participation, and recommendations for follow-up with nonrespondents. We also discuss the challenges of survey administration and provide guidance for navigating low response rates. Surveys are a common tool used to evaluate educational initiatives and collect data for all types of research. However, many clinician educators conducting survey-based evaluation and research may struggle to efficiently administer their survey. As a result, they often struggle to obtain appropriate response rates and thus may have difficulty publishing their survey results. Previous papers in this series focused on the initial steps of survey development and validation, but it is equally important to understand how best to administer your survey to obtain meaningful responses from a representative sample., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 The Authors. AEM Education and Training published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Physicians and physicians-in-training have repeatedly demonstrated poor accuracy of global self-assessments, which are assessments removed from the context of a specific task, regardless of any intervention. Self-monitoring, an in-the-moment self-awareness of one's performance, offers a promising alternative to global self-assessment. The purpose of this scoping review is to better understand the state of self-monitoring in graduate medical education., Methods: We performed a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's six steps: identifying a research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting included studies, charting the data, collating and summarising the results and consulting experts. Our search queried Ovid Medline, Web of Science, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE databases from 1 January 1999 to 12 October 2022., Results: The literature search yielded 5363 unique articles. The authors identified 77 articles for inclusion. The search process helped create a framework to identify self-monitoring based on time and context dependence. More than 20 different terms were used to describe self-monitoring, and only 13 studies (17%) provided a definition for the equivalent term. Most research focused on post-performance self-judgements of a procedural skill (n = 31, 42%). Regardless of task, studies focused on self-judgement (n = 66, 86%) and measured the accuracy or impact on performance of self-monitoring (n = 41, 71%). Most self-monitoring was conducted post-task (n = 65, 84%)., Conclusion: Self-monitoring is a time- and context-dependent phenomenon that seems promising as a research focus to improve clinical performance of trainees in graduate medical education and beyond. The landscape of current literature on self-monitoring is sparse and heterogeneous, suffering from a lack of theoretical underpinning, inconsistent terminology and insufficiently clear definitions., (© 2023 Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Purpose: In health professions education (HPE), the effect of assessments on student motivation for learning and its consequences have been largely neglected. This is problematic because assessments can hamper motivation and psychological well-being. The research questions guiding this review were: How do assessments affect student motivation for learning in HPE? What outcomes does this lead to in which contexts?, Method: In October 2020, the authors searched PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, ERIC, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection for "assessments" AND "motivation" AND "health professions education/students." Empirical papers or literature reviews investigating the effect of assessments on student motivation for learning in HPE using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods from January 1, 2010, to October 29, 2020, were included. The authors chose the realist synthesis method for data analysis to study the intended and unintended consequences of this complex topic. Assessments were identified as stimulating autonomous or controlled motivation using sensitizing concepts from self-determination theory and data on context-mechanism-outcome were extracted., Results: Twenty-four of 15,291 articles were ultimately included. Assessments stimulating controlled motivation seemed to have negative outcomes. An example of an assessment that stimulates controlled motivation is one that focuses on factual knowledge (context), which encourages studying only for the assessment (mechanism) and results in surface learning (outcome). Assessments stimulating autonomous motivation seemed to have positive outcomes. An example of an assessment that stimulates autonomous motivation is one that is fun (context), which through active learning (mechanism) leads to higher effort and better connection with the material (outcome)., Conclusions: These findings indicate that students strategically learned what was expected to appear in assessments at the expense of what was needed in practice. Therefore, health professions educators should rethink their assessment philosophy and practices and introduce assessments that are relevant to professional practice and stimulate genuine interest in the content., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Introduction: Interdisciplinary research, which integrates input (e.g., data, techniques, theories) from two or more disciplines, is critical for solving wicked problems. Medical education research is assumed to be interdisciplinary. However, researchers have questioned this assumption. The present study, a conceptual replication, clarifies the nature of medical education interdisciplinarity by analyzing the citations of medical education journal articles., Method: The authors retrieved the cited references of all articles in 22 medical education journals between 2001-2020 from Web of Science (WoS). We then identified the WoS classifications for the journals of each cited reference., Results: We analyzed 31,283 articles referencing 723,683 publications. We identified 493,973 (68.3%) of those cited references in 6,618 journals representing 242 categories, which represents 94% of all WoS categories. Close to half of all citations were categorized as "education, scientific disciplines" and "healthcare sciences and services". Over the study period, the number of references consistently increased as did the representation of categories to include a diversity of topics such as business, management, and linguistics., Discussion: Our study aligns with previous research, suggesting that medical education research could be described as inwardly focused. However, the observed growth of categories and their increasing diversity over time indicates that medical education displays increasing interdisciplinarity. Now visible, the field can raise awareness of and promote interdisciplinarity, if desired, by seeking and highlighting opportunities for future growth., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests in regards to this research. However, Lauren Maggio declares that she is the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Perspectives on Medical Education., (Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s).)

In recent years, health professions researchers have suggested that a dual identity that includes both a professional and interprofessional identity is essential to interprofessionality. This scoping review sought to describe the learning experiences that may support the development of an interprofessional identity, providing direction for future research. A scoping review was conducted to identify papers published between 2000 and 2020 that provided empiric evidence to support the impact of planned or spontaneous learning experiences involving two or more healthcare professions that fostered the development of an "interprofessional identity," or a sense of belonging to an interprofessional community. Twelve papers were identified for inclusion. Articles varied regarding both the professional groups studied and the developmental levels of their participants. A wide variety of learning experiences were described in the identified studies, including designed activities and programs, as well as those occurring spontaneously in authentic clinical environments. Examples of longitudinal and integrated programs were also identified. The construct of an interprofessional identity and its potential impact on interprofessional practice has yet to be sufficiently studied. The results of this scoping review suggest that a variety of experiences that occur throughout the professional development trajectory may foster an interprofessional identity. Longitudinal, integrated interprofessional learning programs may result in a more long-lasting impact on interprofessional identity and these types of programs should be the focus of future research., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Introduction: The voices of authors who publish medical education literature have a powerful impact on the field's discourses. Researchers have identified a lack of author diversity, which suggests potential epistemic injustice. This study investigates author characteristics to provide an evidence-based starting point for communal discussion with the intent to move medical education towards a future that holds space for, and values, diverse ways of knowing., Method: The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of all articles published in 24 medical education journals published between 2000 and 2020 to identify author characteristics, with an emphasis on author gender and geographic location and their intersection. Article metadata was downloaded from Web of Science. Genderize.io was used to predict author gender., Results: The journals published 37 263 articles authored by 62 708 unique authors. Males were more prevalent across all authorship positions (n = 62 828; 55.7%) than females (n = 49 975; 44.3%). Authors listed affiliations in 146 countries of which 95 were classified as Global South. Few articles were written by multinational teams (n = 3765; 16.2%). Global South authors accounted for 12 007 (11.4%) author positions of which 3594 (3.8%) were female., Discussion: This study provides an evidence-based starting point to discuss the imbalance of author voices in medical education, especially when considering the intersection of gender and geographical location, which further suggests epistemic injustice in medical education. If the field values a diversity of perspectives, there is considerable opportunity for improvement by engaging the community in discussions about what knowledge matters in medical education, the role of journals in promoting diversity, how to best use this baseline data and how to continue studying epistemic injustice in medical education., (© 2022 The Authors. Medical Education published by Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: Since 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has surveyed residents and fellows in its accredited programs. The Resident/Fellow Survey is a screening and compliance tool that programs can also use for continuous quality improvement. However, stakeholders have reported potential problems with the survey's overall quality and credibility., Objective: To redesign the 2006 Resident/Fellow Survey using expert reviews and cognitive interviews., Methods: In 2018-2019, the ACGME redesigned the Resident/Fellow Survey using an iterative validation process: expert reviews (evidence based on content) and cognitive interviews (evidence based on response processes). Expert reviews were conducted by a survey design firm and an ACGME Task Force; cognitive interviews were conducted with a diverse set of 27 residents and fellows., Results: Expert reviews resulted in 21 new survey items to address the ACGME's updated accreditation requirements; these reviews also led to improvements that align the survey items with evidence-informed standards. After these changes were made, cognitive interviews resulted in additional revisions to sensitive items, item order, and response option order, labels, and conceptual spacing. In all, cognitive interviews led to 11 item deletions and other improvements designed to reduce response error., Conclusions: Expert reviews and cognitive interviews were used to redesign the Resident/Fellow Survey. The content of the redesigned survey aligns with the updated accreditation requirements and items are written in accordance with evidence-informed standards. Additionally, cognitive interviews resulted in revisions to the survey that seem to improve respondents' comprehension and willingness to respond to individual survey items., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Surveys are descriptive assessment tools. Like other assessment tools, the validity and reliability of the data obtained from surveys depend, in large part, on the rigor of the development process. Without validity evidence, data from surveys may lack meaning, leading to uncertainty as to how well the survey truly measures the intended constructs. In documenting the evidence for the validity of survey results and their intended use, it is incumbent on the survey creator to have a firm understanding of validity frameworks. Having an understanding of validity evidence and how each step in the survey development process can support the validity argument makes it easier for the researcher to develop, implement, and publish a high-quality survey., Competing Interests: The authors declare no potential conflict of interest., (© 2022 The Authors. AEM Education and Training published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Experts have described ways to improve peer review quality. Perspectives from expert reviewers are largely absent in the health professions education literature. To gather guidance from expert reviewers, to aid authors striving to publish and reviewers aiming to perform their task effectively. This study surveyed the Journal of Graduate Medical Education (JGME) 'Top Reviewers' from 2017, 2018, and 2019. 'Top Reviewers' perform four or more reviews per year, with high average ratings. Top reviewers were sent an 11-item survey in February 2020. The survey included three demographic questions and eight open-ended, free-text questions about the concepts reviewers most often target in their reviews. We calculated descriptive statistics and performed a thematic analysis of open-ended responses. Of 62 eligible top reviewers, 44 (71%) responded to the survey. Only eight (18.2%) and seven (15.9%) respondents reported having 'stock phrases' or a reviewer template used for reviewer feedback to authors, respectively. The what (research question, methods), how (presentation, writing), and why (relevance, impact) were the resulting themes summarizing how reviewers categorized and responded to common problems. For 'really good papers' reviewers found the what acceptable and focused on how and why . For 'really bad' papers, reviewers focused on big picture feedback, such as the value of the study. Top reviewers from a single health professions education journal appear to have similar approaches to conducting reviews. While most do not use stock phrases or templates, they share similar strategies to differentiate 'good' vs. 'bad' papers through the what, why , and how of a manuscript.

Surveys are ubiquitous in medical education. They can be valuable for assessment across a wide range of applications and are frequently used in medical education research. This Educator's Blueprint paper reviews the best practices in survey design with a focus on survey development. Key components of the survey design process include determining whether a survey is the right tool, using an intentional approach to content development, and following best practices in item writing and formatting. These processes are meant to help educators and researchers design better surveys for making better decisions., (© 2022 The Authors. AEM Education and Training published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: An important strategy to support the professional development of mentors in health professions education is to encourage critical reflection on what they do, why they do it, and how they do it. Not only the 'how' of mentoring should be covered, but also the implicit knowledge and beliefs fundamental to the mentoring practice (a mentor's personal interpretative framework). This study analyzed the extent to which mentors perceive a difference between how they actually mentor and how they prefer to mentor., Methods: The MERIT (MEntor Reflection InstrumenT) survey (distributed in 2020, N = 228), was used to ask mentors about the how, what, and why of their mentoring in two response modes: (1) regarding their actual mentoring practice and (2) regarding their preferred mentoring practice. With an analysis of covariance, it was explored whether potential discrepancies between these responses were influenced by experience, profession of the mentor, and curriculum-bound assessment requirements., Results: The averaged total MERIT score and averaged scores for the subscales 'Supporting Personal Development' and 'Monitoring Performance' were significantly higher for preferred than for actual mentoring. In addition, mentors' experience interacted significantly with these scores, such that the difference between actual and preferred scores became smaller with more years of experience., Conclusions: Mentors can reflect on their actual and preferred approach to mentoring. This analysis and the potential discrepancy between actual and preferred mentoring can serve as input for individual professional development trajectories., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To conduct a bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education (PME) to provide insights into the journal's inner workings and to "take stock" of where PME is today, where it has been, and where it might go., Methods: Data, including bibliographic metadata, reviewer and author details, and downloads, were collected for manuscripts submitted to and published in PME from the journal's Editorial Manager and Web of Science. Gender of authors and reviewers was predicted using Genderize.io. To visualize and analyze collaboration patterns, citation relationships and term co-occurrence social network analyses (SNA) were conducted. VOSviewer was used to visualize the social network maps., Results: Between 2012-2019 PME received, on average, 260 manuscripts annually (range = 73-402). Submissions were received from authors in 81 countries with the majority in the United States (US), United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. PME published 518 manuscripts with authors based in 31 countries, the majority being in the Netherlands, US, and Canada. PME articles were downloaded 717,613 times (mean per document: 1388). In total 1201 (55% women) unique peer reviewers were invited and 649 (57% women) completed reviews; 1227 (49% women) unique authors published in PME. SNA revealed that PME authors were quite collaborative, with most authoring articles with others and only a minority (n = 57) acting as single authors., Discussion: This case study provides a glimpse into PME and offers evidence for PME's next steps. In the future, PME is committed to growing the journal thoughtfully; diversifying and educating editorial teams, authors, and reviewers, and liberating and sharing journal data., (© 2022. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: The field of medical education remains poorly delineated such that there is no broad consensus of articles or journals that comprise 'the field'. This lack of consensus indicates a missed opportunity for researchers to generate insights about the field that could facilitate conducting bibliometric studies and other research designs (e.g., systematic reviews) and also enable individuals to identify themselves as 'medical education researchers'. Other fields have utilised bibliometric field delineation, which is the assigning of articles or journals to a certain field in an effort to define that field., Process: In this Research Approach, three bibliometric field delineation approaches-information retrieval, core journals, and journal co-citation-are introduced. For each approach, the authors describe attempts to apply it in medical education and identify related strengths and weaknesses. Based on co-citation, the authors propose the Medical Education Journal List 24 (MEJ-24), as a starting point for delineating medical education and invite the community to collaborate on improving and potentially expanding this list., Pearls: As a research approach, field delineation is complicated, and there is no clear best way to delineate the field of medical education. However, recent advances in information science provide potentially fruitful approaches to deal with the field's complexity. When considering these approaches, researchers should consider collaborating with bibliometricians. Bibliometric approaches rely on available metadata for articles and journals, which necessitates that researchers examine the metadata prior to analysis to understand its strengths and weaknesses, and to assess how this might affect data interpretation. While using bibliometric approaches for field delineation is valuable, it is important to remember that these techniques are only as good as the research team's interpretation of the data, which suggests that an expanded approach is needed to better delineate medical education, an approach that includes active discussion within the medical education community., (© 2021 The Authors. Medical Education published by Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Introduction: While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency-a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context-to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions., Method: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2)., Results: Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task-based and negotiated., Discussion: This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point-the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step-the enacted and narrated approach to the game., (© 2021 Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)