Research Tips

Sponsored by the SEA Research Committee (Section Editor - Ted Sakai, MD, Ph.D., MHA)

September 2023 - Invitation to the SEA Research Mentorship Program (2023-2024 Cycle)
August 2023 - Invitation to the SEA Research Mentorship Program (2023-2024 Cycle)
August 2022 - The Best Trainee Abstract Awards (New Program Announcement!)
July 2022 - Introduction of the SEA Research Mentorship Program
June 2022 - Foundations and Practical Advice
May 2022 - Foundations and Practical Advice
April 2022 – Foundations and Practical Advice 
March 2022 – Foundations and Practical Advice 
February 2022 – Noise
January 2022 – Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)
November 2021 – Self Determination Theory (SDT)
October 2021 – SEAd Grant Application
September 2021 – SEA Meeting Abstract and Presentation

September 2023: Invitation to the SEA Research Mentorship Program (2023-2024 Cycle)

The SEA Research Committee has been organizing research mentorship to the SEA members with great success! Please check out this month's tips “Research mentorship program reflection – Part 2” by Christine Vo, MD, FASA (Mentee 2022-2023 Cycle, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center), Oluwakemi Tomobi, MD, MEHP (SEA Research Mentee: 2022-2023 Cycle, Clinical Research Scientist, West Virginia School of Medicine), Susan Martinelli, MD, FASA (Mentor 2022-2023 Cycle, Edward A Norfleet, MD '70 Distinguished Professor, University of North Carolina), Fei Chen, PhD, MEd, MStat (Mentor 2022-2023 Cycle, Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina).  We are now inviting applicants to the research mentorship program in 2023-2024 cycle.

The SEA Research Committee has organized the research mentorship program since 2022, provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. The goal is to support a clinician-educator who needs longitudinal mentorship on her/his educational research study for publication. We are now inviting applicants to the research mentorship program in 2023-2024 cycle. Please apply via the website:


Christine Vo, MD, FASA: SEA Research Mentee (2022-2023 Cycle)
Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology
Assistant Program Director
Medical Student Clerkship Director
Department of Anesthesiology
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

The SEA Research Mentor Program has been a phenomenal opportunity for me to explore the field of educational research with experts who’ve shown the capacity to be highly productive. A fundamental aspect of the program is the ability to review the ‘profiles’ of potential mentors to get a sense of the type of research projects they’ve been involved in and what organizations/roles they’ve served. This helped me with identifying someone I felt I could really connect with.

In my role as Assistant Program Director and Medical Student Clerkship Director, I am significantly involved in overseeing the learning environment of our residents and students. After attending the SEA Workshop of Teaching, I wanted to explore the field of educational research to strengthen my competency as an educator. I had difficulty with finding a local mentor who had the capacity to provide meaningful guidance in developing and attaining my research goals while also empathizing with my busy administrative responsibilities.

With Dr. ‘Susie’ Martinelli’s mentorship, I was able to implement my first educational research project and gain the confidence to initiate additional studies, with three abstracts presented at the 2023 SEA Spring Meeting. The feeling of having someone with such expertise and empathy invested in my professional and academic growth was revitalizing and gave me the confidence to push myself beyond what I could only imagine.

If there is any inkling of interest in educational research, I highly recommend enrolling in the SEA Research Mentor Program. The mentors are thoughtfully selected to provide the highest quality professional relationship with meaningful feedback, productive discussions, and access to opportunities that may not be readily available at your home institution. The only regret I have is that I didn’t apply for this program sooner!

Oluwakemi Tomobi, MD, MEHP: SEA Research Mentee (2022-2023 Cycle)
Clinical Research Scientist
Department of Anesthesiology
West Virginia School of Medicine

“Mentoring is a brain to pick, an ear to listen, and a push in the right direction.” - John Crosby

I have always appreciated having mentors for different areas of career and scholarship. Education research, however, was an area I desired to further develop. The SEA Research Mentor program has been a rewarding opportunity to delve into anesthesia education research in ways that I did not consider previously. I highly recommend it for anyone who is considering branching out into this less traveled area of scholarship.

For the past year, Dr. Fei Chen has added refreshing perspectives on an anesthesia consent study. Flexible yet firm with the manuscript drafting deadlines, we met on Zoom every other month for discussions and updates, which motivated me and kept me on track. In addition, with Dr. Chen’s mentorship, not only was I able to complete this project into manuscript mode, but I also earned multiple awards, including two at the institution level and one at the state level. Furthermore, I developed the confidence to apply for and be successfully awarded a travel grant to implement a project, for the first time, successfully, as a lead investigator. Also, in our meetings, we have discussed future anesthesia education research proposals and strategies for collaborations.

Most importantly, I was able to successfully coach two recent applicants to be awarded grants last summer, with one of the projects as an education research project. I am grateful for Dr. Chen’s mentorship and the successful inaugural year with the SEA Research Mentor program. I cannot recommend the program highly enough.


Susan Martinelli, MD, FASA: SEA Research Mentor (2022-2023 Cycle)
Residency Program Director
Edward A Norfleet, MD '70 Distinguished Professor
Professor of Anesthesiology
Division of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia
University of North Carolina

When I became interested in educational research about 10 years ago, nobody in my department was doing this type of work. I had no idea where to start. I was so lucky to find mentorship outside of my institution from Dr Randy Schell at the University of Kentucky. He helped me to start my first project, obtain my first grant, publish this work, and meet so many other educational researchers in our field. The SEA has made it so much easier to connect with a mentor outside of your institution to help with educational research. I was fortunate to be partnered with Dr Christine Vo at the University of Oklahoma as my SEA Mentee this past year. It has been so fun for me to see all the impressive things she is accomplishing! If you are interested in pursuing educational research but don’t have mentors within your department, join the SEA Mentorship Program! It is a tremendous opportunity to grow your career.

Fei Chen, PhD, MEd, MStat: SEA Research Mentor (2022-2023 Cycle)
Assistant Professor
Co-director, Teacher Lab
Department of Anesthesiology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

As an SEA research mentor, I have had the privilege of working closely with Dr. Oluwakemi Tomobi over the past year on her anesthesia consent project, and I can attest to the value and benefits of this program.

Dr. Tomobi's project involved comprehensive data collection from multiple sites. We were able to establish clear action items and set goals for her study together by participating in the mentorship program. Despite encountering some delays during the data collection process, I am highly optimistic about Dr. Tomobi's trajectory towards publishing at least one article derived from this multi-site study. This study stands out with its controlled design, a substantial sample size, and valuable patient-reported outcomes. Dr. Tomobi’s achievements on this project thus far are a testament to the opportunities provided by the mentorship program. She has presented her work at multiple conferences and received research awards for her presentations.

By providing longitudinal mentorship, the SEA Research Mentorship Program seeks to boost the quality and quantity of clinician educators' publications, ultimately advancing the field of anesthesiology educational research and curriculum development. I firmly believe that the mentorship program can benefit both mentees and mentors. It offers a unique opportunity to foster collaboration, improve research skills, and contribute to the dissemination of study findings.

August 2023: Invitation to the SEA Research Mentorship Program (2023-2024 Cycle)

The SEA Research Committee has organized the research mentorship program since 2022, provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. The goal is to support a clinician-educator who needs longitudinal coaching/mentorship on her/his educational research study for publication. We are now inviting applicants to the research mentorship program in 2023-2024 cycle:

Heather A. Ballard, MD: SEA Research Mentee (2022-2023 Cycle)
Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology
Medical Director of Transplant Anesthesiology 
Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago   

Have you ever had a project that you were eager to launch, but found yourself lacking the necessary resources and mentorship to bring it to fruition? If so, then the Society for Education in Anesthesia's research mentor program is tailor-made for you. Personally, I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have been invited to join as a mentee and to be paired with the esteemed medical education researcher, John Mitchell. 

Our initial objective was to transform my SEA abstract, titled "Using Simulation-based Mastery Learning to Enhance Difficult Conversation Skills," into a scholarly work. I'm thrilled to announce that it is scheduled to be published in the esteemed Journal of Education in Perioperative Medicine next month. Through regular meetings, I was held to a higher level of accountability and had the invaluable opportunity to bounce ideas off John and engage in collaborative projects.

Our mentor-mentee relationship has yielded exceptional productivity, resulting in three publications and two national presentations. I eagerly anticipate continuing my work with John and paving the way for future SEA mentees. If you are contemplating joining this program, I wholeheartedly encourage you to apply. The program offers the essential components necessary to advance in the field of academic medical education: unparalleled opportunities, invaluable mentorship, and fruitful collaboration.

John D. Mitchell, MD: SEA Research Mentor (2022-2023 Cycle)
Vice Chair for Academic Affairs,
Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Management and Perioperative Medicine,
Henry Ford Health

I wanted to update you on the research journey that my SEA research mentoring partner, Dr. Heather Ballard, has embarked on.

Over the summer of 2022, we worked on increasing her national profile, including at increasing work with SEA and nominating her successfully as an Associate member of AUA.

We also started discussing her research plans, which she had carefully mapped out already. By fall 2022, she had enough pieces in place to start working on a FAER grant August 2023 cycle. She has enlisted support from the ACGME to explore the impact of a mastery learning simulation curriculum teaching difficult conversations on milestone performance and burnout.

We completed work on a review article and Point- counter point piece both on burnout for a themed issue of the Permanente Journal; Dr. Ballard is co-senior author on one and senior author on the other (corresponding on both). In the spring, we presented an invited panel together at AUA on novel approaches and uses for deliberate practice and mastery learning. This gave Heather an opportunity to share some of her prior SEA'd supported work, as well as the pilot work for the FAER proposal and get her message out to a broader audience. We then headed directly over to Seattle for the SEA conference to moderate a workshop that Heather organized and led on "Making it count twice- Turning scholarly medical education into scholarship". We are also collaborating on several other protocols and panel proposals.

In her "spare time", Heather has also managed to squeeze in a grand rounds presentation, another manuscript submission, and preparations for her promotion application for Associate Professor. I am inspired by her career trajectory, prospects for promotion, and future funding. I enjoy the opportunity to work alongside Heather and help her grow her career and research interests, which she was admittedly doing quite well on without my support. She is on a great path to sharing her expertise nationally and helping us to improve education and educational research in our specialty. Through this process, she has become a mentor to one of my residents who will be doing pediatric fellowship, paying the virtuous cycle forward already. Thank you for developing the pathway to make this possible!

August 2022: The Best Trainee Abstract Awards (New Program Announcement!)

The SEA Research Committee provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. Alternatively, we feature a summary of educational theories to broaden your foundation in educational research and curriculum development.

This month, the leadership of the SEA Research Committee is delighted to announce the creation of the Best Trainee Abstract Awards.

(New Program Announcement)
Best Trainee Abstract Awards

  • Based on the proposal by the SEA Research Committee, the SEA Council agreed to create the Best Trainee Abstract Awards in the Spring SEA meetings as of 2023. 
  • The awardee(s) will be recognized at the Award session with the certificate of the award and the monetary award of USD $500.00. 
  • The award will be selected for each category (Research and Innovative curriculum).

Reason for the awards:

  • Boost the motivation among the trainees for participation, and the PIs for mentorship.

Expected outcome:

  • Increase of the numbers of the abstract submissions by trainees


  • The abstracts first authored by a trainee (fellows, residents, medical students, or undergraduate students) and presented by the trainee at the SEA Spring meeting.
  • At the time of abstract submission, the trainee should indicate his/her trainee status along with the letter of support by the faculty mentor. 
  • The faculty mentor letter should testify the trainee's contribution of the abstract as the first author: a) substantial contributions to study conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, b) drafting the abstract or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and c) final approval of the version to be submitted (

Selection criteria:

  • The same criteria with the abstract scoring for acceptance
  • The same criteria with the Philip Liu Award selection (if oral)
  • The abstract would ideally be among the oral presentations. If not, it should be one of the best posters (SEA Research Committee will score poster presentation as of 2023). 

Special considerations:

  • "What if the trainee's abstract wins the Philip Liu Award?"
  1.  Provide both awards
  • "What if the trainee fails to attend and present the abstract?"
  1. Some emergency situations may make the trainee unavailable for presentation. This should be considered as case-by-case basis.
  • "What if the quality of all trainee's abstracts deems to be poor?" 
  1. No award in the category will be presented.

Program Administrators:

Ted Sakai, MD, PhD, MHA, FASA
Chair, SEA Research Committee
[email protected]

Dante Cerza, MD
Chair Designee, SEA Research Committee
[email protected]

July 2022: Introduction of the SEA Research Mentorship Program

The SEA Research Committee provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. Alternatively, we feature a summary of educational theories to broaden your foundation in educational research and curriculum development.

This month, the leadership of the SEA Research Committee is delighted to announce the initiation of the SEA Research Mentorship Program.

Introduction of the SEA Research Mentorship Program

Needs Assessment:

  • There are many clinician-educators who fail to publish the abstract to a full publication. Only 15% (52 abstracts among 351) SEA presented abstracts between 2011 - 2019 have been published as a full manuscript (Cerza et al. 2022: unpublished data). The mentorship may boost the willingness and the publication rate of the clinician-educators. 
  • There are many submissions to the Idea Lab workshop. These submitters have a good idea; however, intervention at the Workshop may be transient. These clinician-educators may be benefitted from the longitudinal support.


Support a clinician-educator who needs a longitudinal coaching/mentorship on her/his educational research study for publication

The List of Mentors (2022 - 2023 academic year):

Fei Chen, PhD, MEd
Assistant Professor, Medical Education
Department of Anesthesiology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Viji Kurup, MD
Professor of Anesthesiology,
Yale University

Susan Martinelli, MD
Professor of Anesthesiology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

John Mitchell, MD (available as of September 2022)
Vice Chair for Academic Affairs
Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Management & Perioperative Medicine,
Henry Ford Health

Ted Sakai, MD, PhD, MHA, FASA
Professor of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine,
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Publications: ‪Tetsuro Sakai, MD, PhD‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Application Process:

Since this program is new, we invite the mentees from the abstract submitters for the SEA Spring meetings. Application or inquiry to [email protected] & [email protected].
Application form is here.

Mentorship Processes:

  • Mentor-mentee matching will be presided by the administrator (specific mentor request can be made by the mentee at the time of application) 
  • Submit the Mentor-Mentee agreement form
  • The mentee has the primary responsibility to initiate the meetings. 
  • The frequency, length, and management of the meetings will be determined by the mentor and the mentee. 
  • The acknowledgment of the SEA research mentorship program has to be made on any scholarly products generated by the mentee. 
  • If the mentor's contribution fulfills the requirement of the authorship (Defining the role of authors and contributors, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors., the mentor's participation should be listed as the authorship. This decision should be mutually agreed upon between the mentor and the mentee. 
  • If there is any disagreement or conflict arises, the Administrator or the SEA Council will serve as the mediators. 
  • This is a one-year term mentor-mentee program. Only if both parties express the wish to renew the mentor-mentee relationship, the mentorship will be renewed. 
  • The mentees will undergo both the entry and the exit interview with the administrator. 
  • The mentees are required to respond to various surveys during peri-mentorship periods.

Program Administrators:

Ted Sakai, MD, PhD, MHA, FASA
Chair, SEA Research Committee
[email protected]

Dante Cerza, MD
Chair Designee, SEA Research Committee
[email protected]

June 2022: Education Research - Foundations and Practical Advice

The SEA Research Committee provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. Alternatively, we feature a summary of educational theories to broaden your foundation in educational research and curriculum development.  

This month, Dr. Pedro P. Tanaka (Clinical Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine) shares an overview of Entrustable Professional Activities and provides tips on how you can translate it in your educational research.

Translating Entrustable Professional Activities into Education Research


Designing a scholarly project on assessment start by addressing the theoretical perspective which demonstrates the philosophical orientation of the researcher that guides their research. Conceptual frameworks represent ways of thinking about a problem or a study, or ways of representing how complex things work. They help to identify and clarify what matters for the study.

In this article we discuss how to structure Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA) as a validation research project. We start from the theorical perspective, followed by describing which conceptual frameworks could be used for development, implementation, and validation of an EPA-aligned workplace-based assessment tool. Conceptual frameworks represent ways of thinking about a problem or a study, or ways of representing how complex things work (Bordage, 2009). 

A.    Epistemological Perspective

At the core of instrumental epistemology is a view of knowledge as effective action – as the capability to act on and in the world (Bagnall and Hodge, 2017). The ends, though, to which action is directed, are essentiallyexternal to the epistemology, being drawn from the prevailing cultural context, rather than the epistemology itself. Such knowledge is essentially functional in nature, in that the applied knowledge makes it possible to do certain things in particular ways (Bagnall and Hodge, 2017). 

Education evidencing instrumental epistemology focuses on learners’ engagement in learning tasks underspecific conditions (Bagnall and Hodge, 2017). It is directed to developing highly valued individual action: highly skilled or highly capable individuals in the case of competence-based approaches to education and action (Bagnall and Hodge, 2017). Criteria for assessing education attainment are predetermined by thelearning task as being demonstrable and measurable – centrally, skills and capabilities in the case of competence-based education – related to the pre-specified conditions (Jesson et al., 1987).

Assessment is either wholly or substantially performance based, with criteria drawn from the specificationsrecorded in competence articulations (Tovey and Lawlor, 2004). From a psychometric point of view, assessment of learners the workplace is notoriously difficult. It relies on subjective impressions of medical professionals, often not trained in assessment and on test circumstances that cannot be standardized. Medical competence is in part context dependent, and the purpose of the assessment is typically not to know how trainees have performed in the past, but to predict how they will perform in the near future (tenCate et al., 2015).

B.    Instrument Development Framework

The theoretical concept of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) can be evaluated based on psychometric assumptions described by Thorkildsen (2005a). The following definitions are applicable when creating an assessment instrument:

  • Indicants – actual entities that can be recorded using senses or equipment that simulate directobservation.
  • Dimensions – combinations of indicants or theoretical components of a more general construct.
  • Latent variables – entities that cannot be recorded but reflect second-order inferences about particulardimensions or constructs.
  • Constructs – combinations of dimensions that reflect abstract or theoretical entities embedded within amore general concept; and
  • Concepts – combinations of latent and observed construct used to explain particular theoretical claims Figure 1).

Figure 1. Deductive model of construct, dimensions, and indicants

EPAs can be used as a construct that incorporates different competencies, also known as corecompetencies by ACGME (dimensions). The ACGME framework was developed to address fragmentation and lack of clarity in existing postgraduate programs (Batalden et al., 2002), to enhance assessment ofresident performance, and to increase use of education outcomes for improving resident education (Swing, 2007). The ACGME framework consists of six general competencies, each with a series of sub-competencies. The idea of competencies can be considered as outcome indicators of the education process. The milestones for each competency may serve as definitions, for demonstrations of achievement for that particular competency (indicants). One can map an EPA to domains of competence, competencies within the domains, and their respective milestones. We must be able to both see integrated performance (the EPA) and diagnose the underlying causes of performance difficulties (the competencies and their respective milestones) to help learners continually improve. 

A construct is a concept, model, or schematic idea. The term latent means ‘‘not directly observable.” In ourmodel for assessment, EPA is the construct, or a latent construct, defined as a variable that cannot be measured. The inability to measure a construct directly represents a measurement challenge. Social scientists have addressed this problem using two critical philosophical assumptions. First, they assume that although systems to measure constructs are completely man-made, the constructs themselves are real and exist apart from the awareness of the researcher and the participant under study. The second assumption is that although latent constructs are not directly observed, they do have a causal relationship with observedmeasures (McCoach, Gable, and Madura, 2013). The operational definition describes the procedures we employ to form measures of the latent variable(s) to represent the construct or concept of interest. In the social sciences, latent variables are often operationalized through the use of responses to questionnaires orsurveys (Bollen, 1989). In this example the variables dimension (core competencies) and indicators (reported milestones) are operationalized through a content validation of the EPAs (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Mapping EPAs to ACGME milestones

Affective measurement is the process of ‘‘obtaining a score that represents a person’s position on a bipolarevaluative dimension with respect to the attitude object’’ (McCann, 2017). Similar correlation could be madewhen determining the level of supervision of a resident being able to complete a task independently.

C.     Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a meta-theoretical framework thatprovides a repository of standardized implementation-related constructs that can be applied across the spectrum of implementation research. The CFIR has 39 constructs organized across five major domains, all of which interact to influence implementation and implementation effectiveness. Those five major domains are: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs are identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs are identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), twelve constructs are identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs are identified related to individual characteristics (e.g., knowledge and beliefs about the Intervention), and eight constructs are identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect)(Damschroder et al., 2009).

The CFIR provides a common language by which determinants of implementation can be articulated, as well as a comprehensive, standardized list of constructs to serve as a guide for researchers as they identify variables that are most salient to implementation of a particular innovation (Kirk et al., 2015). It provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories(Damschroder et al., 2009).

D.    Theoretical Domains Framework

Describes a comprehensive range of potential mediators of behavior change relating to clinical actions. It thus provides a useful conceptual basis for exploring implementation problems, designing implementation interventions to enhance healthcare practice, and understanding behavior-change processes in the implementation of evidence- based care (Francis et al., 2012).

This framework synthesizes a large set of behavioral theories into 14 theoretical domains (i.e., sets ofconstructs; see Table I) that should be considered when exploring health professionals’ behaviors. TheTheoretical Domains Framework posits that factors influencing these behaviors can be mapped to these 14 domains and that each domain represents a potential mediator of the behavior (Cheung et al., 2019).





Existing procedural knowledge, knowledge about guidelines, knowledge about evidence and how those influences what participants do


Competence and ability about procedural techniques required to perform the behavior

Social/professional roles and identity

Boundaries between professional groups (i.e., is the behavior something that participant is supposed to do or someone else’s role?)

Beliefs about capabilities

Perceptions about competence and confidence in performing the behavior


Whether participant’s optimism or pessimism influences what they do

Beliefs about consequences

Perceptions about outcomes, advantages, and disadvantages of performing the behavior


Previous experiences that have influenced whether the behavior is performed


A conscious decision to perform a behavior or a resolve to act in a certain way


Priorities, importance, commitment to a certain course of actions or behaviors

Memory, attention, and decision processes

Attention control, decision making, memory (i.e., is the target behavior problematic because participants simply forget?)

Environmental context and resources

How factors related to the setting in which the behavior is performed (e.g., people, organizational, cultural, political, physical, and financial factors) influence the behavior

Social influences

External influence from people or groups to perform or not perform the behavior; How the views of colleagues, other professions, patients, and families, and doing what you are told influence the behavior


How feelings or affect (positive or negative) may influence the behavior

Behavioral regulation

Ways of doing things that relate to pursuing and achieving desired goals, standards, or targets; Strategies the participants have in place to help them perform the behavior; Strategies the participants would like to have in place to help them

Commons licensing:

Hence, two major strengths of the Theoretical Domains Framework are its theoretical coverage and its capacity to elicit a comprehensive set of beliefs that could potentially be mediators of behavior change(Francis et al., 2012).

E.     Messick’s Validity Framework

In Messick’s framework, evidence derives from five different sources: content, internal structure,relationships with other variables, response process, and consequences. Content refers to steps taken to ensure that assessment content reflects the construct it is intended to measure. Response process is defined by theoretical and empirical analyses evaluating how well rater or examinee responses align with the intended construct. Data evaluating the relationships among individual assessment items and how these relate to the overarching construct defines the internal structure. Associations between assessment scores and another measure or feature that has a specified theoretical relationship reflect the relationship with other variables. Consequences evidence focuses on the impact, beneficial or harmful and intended or unintendedimplications of assessment (Cook and Lineberry, 2016).

Pedro P. Tanaka, M.D., Ph.D. (Medicine), M.A.C.M., Ph.D. (Education)
Vice-Chair for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Clinical Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine
Associate Designated Institution Official, Graduate Medical Education
Associate Program Director, Anesthesia Residency
Fellowship Director, Advanced Experience in Medical Education
Stanford University School of Medicine


  • Bagnall, R. G., & Hodge, S. (2017). Using an Epistemological Perspective to Understand Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education. In M. Mulder (ed.), Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education (pp. 131-135). Zurich, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
  • Batalden, P., Leach, D., Swing, S., Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (2002). General competencies and accreditation in graduate medical education. Health affairs, 21(5), 103-111.
  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Measurement models: The relation between latent and observed variables. Structural equations with latent variables, 179-225.
  • Bordage, G. (2009). Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Medical education, 43(4), 312-319.
  • Cheung, W. J., Patey, A. M., Frank, J. R., Mackay, M., & Boet, S. (2019). Barriers and enablers to direct observation of trainees’ clinical performance: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework. Academic Medicine, 94(1), 101-114.
  • Cook, D. A., & Lineberry, M. (2016). Consequences validity evidence: evaluating the impact of educational assessments. Academic Medicine, 91(6), 785-795.
  • Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation science, 4(1), 1-15.
  • Francis, J. J., O’Connor, D., & Curran, J. (2012). Theories of behaviour change synthesised into a set of theoretical groupings: introducing a thematic series on the theoretical domains framework. Implementation Science, 7(1), 1-9.
  • Kirk, M. A., Kelley, C., Yankey, N., Birken, S. A., Abadie, B., & Damschroder, L. (2015). A systematic review of the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implementation Science, 11(1), 72.
  • McCann, B. T. (2017). Prior exposure to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial beliefs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.
  • McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (2013). Defining, measuring, and scaling affective constructs. In Instrument development in the affective domain (pp. 33-90). Springer, New York, NY.
  • Swing, S. R. (2007). The ACGME outcome project: retrospective and prospective. Medical teacher, 29(7), 648-654.
  • ten Cate, O., Chen, H., Hoff, R., Peters, H., Bok, H., & van der Schaaf, M. (2015). Curriculum development for the workplace using entrustable professional activities – AMEE Guide number 99. Medical Teacher, 37 (12), 983–2002.
  • Tovey, M., & Lawlor, D. (2004). Training in Australia: Design, Delivery, Evaluation. Management, (2 ed.). Sydney NSW: Pearson Education.
  • Thorkildsen, T. A. (2005a). Assumptions of psychometric measurement. In Thorkildsen, T. A. (Ed.), Fundamentals of measurement in applied research (pp. 60-66). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

May 2022: Education Research - Foundations and Practical Advice

The SEA Research Committee provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. Alternatively, we feature a summary of educational theories to broaden your foundation in educational research and curriculum development. 

This month, Dr. Lauren Buhl (Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology at Harvard Medical School and Chief of Anesthesia at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital - Needham) shares an overview of Mindset Theory and provides tips on how you can apply it in your own research.

Key Points

  • Those with a fixed mindset consider ability and intelligence to be fixed, innate qualities, while those with a growth mindset believe talent can be developed with hard work and proper guidance.
  • Failure is seen as a personal threat to those with a fixed mindset, while those with a growth mindset consider it a learning opportunity.
  • Praise and feedback focused on good outcomes rather than the hard work and process used to get the can instill a fixed mindset.
  • A growth mindset can be taught and developed, even among those with the most fixed mindsets.

During my residency training, whenever a procedure went particularly well or particularly poorly, an older, wiser anesthesiologist at my institution was fond of saying “Anesthesia is a game of kings and fools.” He cautioned against getting too invested in either success or failure as the next challenge was surely coming to swing you in the other direction. While I don’t think he had ever read Dr. Carol Dweck’s work on Mindset Theory, he understood the dangers of internalizing the outcome rather than focusing on the process, and he created an environment that fostered a growth mindset in his learners.

Growth Mindset vs. Fixed Mindset
Mindset Theory is predominantly described in the work of Dweck at colleagues out of Stanford University. Broadly speaking, they propose that we all exist on a continuum between two distinct mindsets. The fixed mindset holds that ability and intelligence are fixed traits, innate to each one of us and not amenable to change. The growth mindset, on the other hand, holds that anyone’s talent and ability can grow with hard work and proper guidance. Of course, no one fully fits these extremes: those with a fixed mindset don’t completely discount the necessity of hard work, and those with a growth mindset don’t think anyone can become Michael Jordan with enough practice and training, but we all exist somewhere on the continuum. Tendencies toward the fixed mindset or the growth mindset can also differ depending on context. Someone may believe that they can improve their performance in school with focused studying and effort, while at the same time considering their difficulty making new friends to be a fixed personality trait.

Perspectives on Failure
The distinction between the two mindsets becomes most apparent in the face of failure. When a resident with a fixed mindset has a missed IV or a failed intubation, they internalize that failure as evidence of some innate personal shortcoming. The shame from this internalization might cause them to avoid situations or challenging cases where they might risk failure, and worse, might lead them to conceal or deny their struggles. Meanwhile, residents with a growth mindset faced with that same missed IV or failed intubation see it as an opportunity to learn and improve rather than some innate personal flaw. They are motivated to seek out more challenging cases despite the risk of failure because of the opportunity to develop their skills. Likewise, they might be more inclined to share their struggles to help others in the department grow as well.

Feedback and the Origin of the Mindsets
If you spend much time observing babies and toddlers, you will recognize many aspects of the growth mindset. Despite setbacks, they continue to pull themselves up, take more steps, climb more stairs, and jump from taller couches. How, then, does a fixed mindset develop? Like most things, it’s probably multifactorial, but there is some evidence that feedback focused on the outcome rather than the process contributes to the fixed mindset. Consider an anesthesia resident who joins a top tier residency program. Throughout their education, they have likely achieved top grades and scores and been told how smart and talented they are by well-meaning teachers and family members. This kind of feedback is incredibly common but can encourage a fixed mindset by tying praise and affection to good outcomes rather than the process of getting to the good outcome. If they fail to achieve good outcomes, they risk losing that praise and affection, creating a disincentive to seek out challenges that could develop their skills further because of the risk of failure.

Developing a Growth Mindset
Regardless of the mindset each trainee brings to their program, it is important to remember that the growth mindset can be taught and developed. When designing a new curriculum or intervention, attention should be paid to the type of mindset it might encourage. Interventions that embrace uncertainty, emphasize the process used to reach an objective, and create a safe environment for failure and learning from failure are more likely to encourage a growth mindset. Finding ways to remind trainees of the progress they have made or telling them stories of the progress you have made in your own career are also effective ways to counteract the fixed mindset.

Assessing Mindset
As you might imagine, assessing mindset – and most importantly, a shift in mindset after a new curriculum or intervention – is not an easy task. Much of the work by Dweck and colleagues utilized the Dweck Mindset Instrument, although this has predominantly been validated in school-aged children. This instrument builds off others, including the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS) and the Achievement Goal Orientation Questionnaire (AGOQ), which could also be useful to your curriculum and education research projects. Emergent themes from a qualitative analysis of a new curriculum of intervention could also be view through the lens of mindset theory to create richer meaning.

Regardless of whether you apply mindset theory to your next curriculum or education research project or just use it in your day-to-day interactions with trainees, keep this guide in mind to create an environment and provide feedback that encourages a growth mindset!

Lauren Buhl, MD, PhD
Chief of Anesthesia at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital - Needham
Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology at Harvard Medical School
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center​
Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine

April 2022: Education Research - Foundations and Practical Advice

The SEA Research Committee provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. Alternatively, we feature a summary of educational theories to broaden your foundation in educational research and curriculum development.  

This month, Dr. Pedro Tanaka (Clinical Professor of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at Stanford University Medical School) shares a Roadmap from Competence to Entrustable Professional Activities.

A Roadmap from Competence to Entrustable Professional Activities


Mulder suggests that ‘professionals are competent when they act responsibly and effectively according to given standards of performance’ (Mulder, 2014). In other words, a meaningful distinction exists between acting in a specific way and possessing a capability for those actions, i.e., competence. Characterizing an action as competent depends on the observer’s point of view. Regardless if there are standards for assessing competence, an observer can never step out of their lifeworld to make an objective assessment, hence it is not possible to judge competence, and predict competent behavior via observing the performance. A key point about the components of competence is that, unlike performances, they cannot be precisely specified (Vonken, 2017).

These foundational components of competence are attributes, or properties of people, such as capabilities, abilities, and skills, where precision in describing them is not attainable (Hager, 2004). Hager comments, “It is performance rather than human capabilities that can be sufficiently and meaningfully represented in statement form; then these proponents of competence have mixed up different categories of items, thereby committing the first pervasive error about competence. It is precisely because performance is observable/measurable/assessable, while the capabilities, abilities and skills that constitute competence are inaccessible, that judging competence always involves inference” (Hager, 2004). Performance is nothing else but observed behavior, which is assessed as competent. The description of competence, from the beginning, summarizes many discussions, to explain what makes an action competent. According to that discussion, acting competently means to act ‘responsibly and effectively’ and ‘to deliver sustainable effective performance’.

The greatest challenge in Competency Based Medical Education (CBME) has been developing an assessment framework that makes sense in the workplace. To be meaningful, such a framework should be specific enough in its description of the behaviors of learners at various developmental stages that it allows for a shared mental image of performance for learners and assessors alike. Competencies address learners’ abilities to integrate knowledge, skills, and attitudes around a specific task. Milestones are brief narrative descriptions of the behaviors that mark given levels of competency, providing a standardized model of behaviors trainees are expected to demonstrate as the progress along the developmental continuum, which spans from education and training to practice. Competencies and their milestones both lack context. Trainee assessment, however, is directly dependent on the clinical context, thereby creating a challenge to meaningful assessment.

Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) provide the context that competencies and their milestones lack and define the common and important professional activities for a given specialty. In the aggregate, they define the clinical practice of the specialty. In contrast to milestones, which provide a granular look at individual behaviors embedded within a given competency, EPAs provide a holistic approach in which assessors view performance through a “big picture” lens to determine whether a learner can integrate competencies to safely and effectively perform the professional activity. EPAs provide context to meaningful assessment missing from competencies and milestones. However, EPAs without the competencies and milestones suffer from the absence of a shared behavioral narrative of what performance looks like along the developmental continuum. These narratives provide language on which actionable feedback for trainee development is built (Schumacher et al., 2020).

The Concept of Entrustable Professional Activity

An EPA can be defined as a unit of professional practice that can be fully entrusted to a trainee, as soon as they have demonstrated the necessary competence to execute this activity unsupervised (ten Cate et al., 2015). Two aspects of this definition have implications for assessment, 1) a focus on units of professional practice which influences an assessment’s blueprint, the test methods employed, and 2) how scores are calculated and a focus on decisions of entrustment, which have implications for the way standards are set. At the postgraduate level, there is tension between the granularity of the competencies and the integrated nature of the EPAs, and work on faculty judgments about entrustment is needed (Tekian et al., 2020).

EPAs were created based on the assumption that it is essential to assess competencies and competence. The premises of formulating EPAs were that identification of ‘entrustable’ professional activities could help program directors and supervisors in their determination of the competence of trainees. The use of EPAs may lead to fixed- length variable outcome programs (fixed training time for graduate medical education) evolving to fixed-outcomes (core competencies) and variable-length programs (ten Cate, 2005). Some specific attributes of EPAs are valuable before an entrustment decision is made such as they:

  • are part of essential professional work in a given context,
  • require appropriate knowledge, skills and attitudes, generally developed through education,
  • must lead to a recognizable output of professional effort,
  • should be demonstrated to qualified personnel,
  • should be independently conducted,
  • should be conducted within a specified time frame,
  • should be observable and assessed in their processes and their outcomes, leading to a decision (‘well done’ or ‘not well done’), and 
  • should reflect one or more of the competencies to be developed and demonstrated.

EPAs can be the focus of assessment. Assessment of a trainee’s performance of an EPA uses an expert supervisor’s subjective, day-to-day observations of the trainee in relation to a competency benchmark. This guided direct observation of learners has potential for more accurately assessing a trainee’s performance and more meaningfully providing a panoramic view of trainee performance. The question is how we “entrust” our trainee to perform a particular EPA.


In a medical training setting, trust is best understood to mean “the reliance of a supervisor or medical team on a trainee to execute a given professional task correctly and on his or her willingness to ask for help when needed.” (ten Cate et al., 2016)

Trust by a supervisor reflects demonstration of competence and reaches further than a specific observed competence, is that it determines when to entrust an essential and critical professional activity to a trainee. Trusting residents to work with limited supervision is a deliberate decision that affects patient safety. In practice, entrustment decisions are affected by four groups of variables: 1) attributes of the trainee (e.g., tired, confident, level of training); 2) attributes of the supervisors (e.g., lenient or strict); 3) context (e.g., time of the day, facilities available); and 4) the nature of the EPA (e.g., rare, complex versus common, easy) (ten Cate, 2013). These variables reflect one of the four conditions for trust (ten Cate, 2016), which is competence, including specific competencies and associated milestones; integrity (e.g., benevolence, having favorable intentions, honesty and truthfulness); reliability (e.g.working conscientiously and showing predictable behavior) and humility (e.g., discernment of own limitations and willingness to ask for help when needed) (Colquitt, Scott, and LePine, 2007) that are described as dominant components of trustworthiness of a medical trainee (ten Cate, 2017).

There are three modes of trust in clinical supervisor–trainee relationships: presumptive trust, initial trust, and grounded trust (ten Cate et al., 2016). Presumptive trust is based solely on credentials, without prior interaction with the trainee. Initial trust is based on first impressions and is sometimes called swift trust or thin trust. Grounded trust is based on essential and prolonged experience with the trainee. Entrustment decisions (whether or not to trust the learner to perform the task) should be based on grounded trust.

Entrustment Decisions

Entrustment decision making—that is, deciding how far to trust trainees to conduct patient care on their own —attempts to align assessment in the workplace with everyday clinical practice (ten Cate et al., 2016). Ad hoc entrustment decisions can be made daily on every ward or clinic and in every clinical training institution. They are situation dependent, and based on supervisors’ judgments regarding the case, the context and the trainee’s readiness for entrustment. Summative entrustment decisions are EPA decisions that reflect identification of competence, supplemented with permission to act unsupervised, and a responsibility to contribute to care for one unit of professional practice, at graduation standards level. The condition is that the trainee has passed the threshold of competence and trustworthiness for an EPA at the level of licensing. Clinical oversight remains in place for trainees. Readiness for indirect supervision or unsupervised practice should include the specific EPA-related ability and the three other trust conditions: integrity, reliability and humility.

The confirmed general factors that influence entrustment of a given professional task: the trainee’s ability; the personality of the supervising physician; the environment and circumstances in which the task is executed; and the nature and complexity of the task itself should be taken in consideration for assessment (Sterkenburg et al., 2010; Tiyyagura et al., 2014). The literature suggests a fifth category or factor (Hauer et al., 2014) to determine whether an ad hoc decision may be taken to entrust a trainee with a new and critical task in the workplace. The relationship between trainee and supervisor has been suggested as a category for entrustment decisions, with its own factors, as this appears to be a condition for the development of trust. There is a long list of factors in each category summarized by the conceptual framework of the entrustment decision-making process (Holzhausen et al., 2017). The assessment of these qualities in a trainee requires longitudinal observation, preferably across different contexts. More recent major themes were elucidated thorough understanding of the process, concept, and language of entrustment as it pertains to internal medicine. These include:

  • the concepts of entrustment, trust, and competence are not easily distinguished and sometimes conflated.
  • entrustment decisions are not made by attendings but rather are often automatic and predetermined by program or trainee level.
  • entrustment is not a discrete, point-in time assessment due to longitudinally of tasks and supervisor relationships with trainees.
  • entrustment scale language does not reflect attendings’ decision making; and
  • entrustment decisions affect the attending more than the resident (Melvin et al., 2020). As a practical matter, it changes the question from whether the trainee is competent to whether the trainee is trustworthy. This shifts the focus from the competence of the trainee to the judges’ sense of what is trustworthy. Entrustment decisions appeal to the consequential validity of a score (Tekian et al., 2020).

Level of Supervision

“Entrustability scales” defined as behaviorally anchored ordinal scales based on progression to competence reflect judgments that have clinical meaning for assessors and have demonstrated the potential to be useful for clinical educators (Rekman et al., 2016). Raters find increased meaning in their assessment decisions due to construct alignment with the concept of EPA. Basing assessments on the reference of safe independent practice overcomes two of the most common weaknesses inherent in work-based assessment (WBA) scales - central tendency and leniency bias (Williams, Klamen, and McGaghie, 2003) - and creates freedom for the assessor to use all categories/numbers on the scale (Crossley et al., 2011). A limitation that entrustment-aligned tools share with all WBA tools is their inability to completely account for context complexity (Rekman et al., 2016).

Additionally, tools using entrustability scales benefit if raters are able to provide narrative comments (Driessen et al., 2005). These narrative comments support trainee learning by giving residents detailed explanations and contextual examples of performance and help collate results of multiple WBAs to make more informed decisions.

EPAs can be the focus of assessment. The key question is: Can we trust this trainee to conduct this EPA? The answer may be translated to five levels of supervision for the EPA, defined below (ten Cate 2013; ten Cate and Scheele 2007, ten Cate et al., 2016).

  • Be present and observe, but not permitted to perform the EPA: At early stages the trainee can directly observe what he or she will be expected to do at the next stage. Gradually the trainee can start doing parts of the activity.
  • Permitted to act under direct, pro-active supervision, with the supervisor present in the room: The trainee may carry out the full activity independently. The supervisor is in the room watching and can intervene or take over at any time deemed necessary.
  • Permitted to act under indirect, re-active supervision, readily available to enter the room: At this stage, the trainee may carry out the full activity independently, with a supervisor not present in the room but readily available within minutes.
  • Permitted to act without qualified supervision in the vicinity; with distant supervision, and basically acting unsupervised: At this stage the trainee may carry out the full activity with no supervisor available on short notice. The trainee reports post hoc the same or the next day.
  • Permitted to supervise junior trainees for the EPA: This level is when a senior trainee has a supervisory role for more junior trainees. The supervising trainee must have demonstrated the ability to provide supervision.

Entrustment and supervision scales, or just ‘entrustment scales, are ordinal, non continuous scales, as they focus on decisions and link to discreet levels of supervision (ten Cate, 2020). Conceptually, entrustment-supervision (ES) scales operationalize the progressive autonomy for which health professions education strives. ES scales can guide teacher interventions within what Vygotsky has named the "Zone of Proximal Development" of a trainee (ten Cate, Schartz, and Chen, 2020). ES scales should therefore reflect the extent of permissible engagement in actual professional practice, rather than being a measure of competence.


Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 92(4), 909.

Crossley, J., Johnson, G., Booth, J., & Wade, W. (2011). Good questions, good answers: construct alignment improves the performance of workplace‐based assessment scales. Medical education, 45(6), 560-569.

Driessen, E., Van Der Vleuten, C., Schuwirth, L., Van Tartwijk, J., & Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (2005). The use of qualitative research criteria for portfolio assessment as an alternative to reliability evaluation: a case study. Medical education, 39(2), 214-220.

Hager, P. (2004). The competence affair, or why vocational education and training urgently needs a new understanding of learning. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 56 (3), 409–433.

Hauer, K. E., ten Cate, O., Boscardin, C., Irby, D. M., Iobst, W., & O’Sullivan, P. S. (2014). Understanding trust as an essential element of trainee supervision and learning in the workplace. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19(3), 435-456.

Holzhausen, Y., Maaz, A., Cianciolo, A. T., ten Cate, O., & Peters, H. (2017). Applying occupational and organizational psychology theory to entrustment decision-making about trainees in health care: a conceptual model. Perspectives on medical education, 6(2), 119-126.

Melvin, L., Rassos, J., Stroud, L., & Ginsburg, S. (2019). Tensions in Assessment: The Realities of Entrustment in Internal Medicine. Academic Medicine.

Mulder, M. (2014). Conceptions of professional competence. In S. Billet, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook on research into professional and practice-based learning: Professions and the workplace (pp. 107–138). Dordrecht: Springer.

Rekman, J., Gofton, W., Dudek, N., Gofton, T., & Hamstra, S. J. (2016). Entrustability scales: outlining their usefulness for competency-based clinical assessment. Academic Medicine, 91(2), 186-190.

Schumacher, D. J., Schwartz, A., Zenel Jr, J. A., Black, N. P., Ponitz, K., Blair, R., ... & Rosenberg, A. (2020). Narrative Performance Level Assignments at Initial Entrustment and Graduation: Integrating EPAs and Milestones to Improve Learner Assessment. Academic Medicine.

Sterkenburg, A., Barach, P., Kalkman, C., Gielen, M., & ten Cate, O. (2010). When do supervising physicians decide to entrust residents with unsupervised tasks? Academic Medicine, 85(9), 1408-1417.

ten Cate, O. (2005). Entrustability of professional activities and competency-based training. Medical education, 39,1176–1177.

ten Cate, O. (2013). Nuts and bolts of entrustable professional activities. Journal of graduate medical education, 5(1), 157-158.

ten Cate, O. (2016). Entrustment as assessment: recognizing the ability, the right, and the duty to act. Journal of graduate medical education, 8(2), 261-262.

ten Cate, O., Chen, H., Hoff, R., Peters, H., Bok, H., & van der Schaaf, M. (2015). Curriculum
development for the workplace using entrustable professional activities – AMEE Guide number 99. Medical Teacher, 37 (12), 983–2002.

ten Cate, O., Hart, D., Ankel, F., Busari, J., Englander, R., Glasgow, N., ... & Touchie, C. (2016). Entrustment decision making in clinical training. Academic Medicine, 91(2), 191-198.

ten Cate, O., Schwartz, A. J., & Chen, H. C (2020). Assessing trainees and making entrustment decisions: on the nature and use of entrustment and supervision scales. Academic Medicine, DOI 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003427

ten Cate, O., & Scheele, F. (2007). Competency-based postgraduate training: Can we bridge the
gap between theory and clinical practice? Academic Medicine, 82 (6), 542–547.

Tekian, A., Ten Cate, O., Holmboe, E., Roberts, T., & Norcini, J. (2020). Entrustment decisions: Implications for curriculum development and assessment. Medical Teacher, 1-7.

Williams, R. G., Klamen, D. A., & McGaghie, W. C. (2003). Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings. Teaching and learning in medicine, 15(4), 270-292.

Pedro P. Tanaka, M.D., Ph.D. (Medicine), M.A.C.M., Ph.D. (Education)
Vice-Chair for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Clinical Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine
Associate Designated Institutional Official, Graduate Medical Education
Associate Program Director, Anesthesia Residency
Fellowship Director, Advanced Experience in Medical Education


March 2022: Education Research - Foundations and Practical Advice

The SEA Research Committee provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. Alternatively, we feature a summary of educational theories to broaden your foundation in educational research and curriculum development.

This month, Dr. Lauren Buhl (Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology at Harvard Medical School and Chief of Anesthesia at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital - Needham) shares an overview of Deliberate Practice and Expert Performance and provides tips on how you can apply them in your own research.

While Hollywood may celebrate the prodigy, the genius, and the savant who seem able to perform at an elite level with barely a hint of effort, the rest of us have long recognized that achieving a high level of performance in nearly any domain requires both experience and practice. The questions that have intrigued modern researchers are how much experience, and what kind of practice? It is clear that duration of experience alone cannot explain the vast individual differences in professional performance, and some forms of practice are clearly more efficient and effective than others. K. Anders Ericsson was a Swedish psychologist whose career revolved around these questions, and his ideas about deliberate practice and expert performance earned him a reputation as “the world’s expert on expertise.”

The Learning Curve

Ericsson proposed three curves along which performance might track with experience. While all new tasks and activities initially require some amount of cognitive focus, the goal for most day-to-day tasks is to reach a socially acceptable level of performance that becomes autonomous (e.g., peeling a potato). Expert performance, however, maintains that initially high level of cognitive focus, perfecting each detail of the task. If that focus is lost and we slip into autonomous performance along the path to expertise, we may end up with arrested development somewhere short of expert performance. To avoid that fate, practitioners who wish to attain an expert level of performance must continue to find opportunities for and dedicate themselves to deliberate practice. In medicine, those opportunities may present themselves readily during training, but often require far more effort to seek out after graduation.

10,000 Hours

Studies of elite chess players, musicians, and professional athletes have converged on the idea that about 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is necessary to achieve expert level performance. This number has been corroborated using practice diaries of elite musicians and chess players and tracks with the typical age when peak performance is reached in numerous sports. It is also just a little less than the clinical hours of a typical ACGME-accredited Anesthesiology residency – although arguably not all of those hours are spent on deliberate practice.

Criteria for Deliberate Practice

What, then, constitutes deliberate practice and contributes to those 10,000 hours? Ericsson and colleagues reviewed many kinds of practice activities to identify those that were highly correlated with expert performance and defined three criteria for deliberate practice:

  1. Participants focus on performing a specific aspect of a well-defined task, rather than the task in its entirety
  2. Participants have immediate access to detailed feedback on their performance
  3. Participants have the opportunity to perform the same or similar tasks repeatedly to improve their performance gradually

Applying Deliberate Practice in your Teaching and Research

When applying and studying the concept of deliberate practice in your own teaching and research, it is important to break down the broad range of “anesthesia care” into representative, measurable tasks. In general, medical education researchers have focused on three domains of diagnosis and treatment:

  1. Interpretation of diagnostic data: Work in this domain focuses on the analysis of exam and diagnostic findings (e.g., intra-op monitors, echocardiography, EEG tracings) and relies on comparison with a gold standard rather than “expert” opinion. For example, cardiac anesthesia fellows may practice their ability to quantify pulmonary hypertension on TEE and receive feedback on their performance from right heart catheterization data.
  2. Diagnosis from clinical interviews: Studies using standardized patients or recordings of patient interviews have shown the superior diagnostic performance of specialists vs. generalists, but it remains unclear which aspects of specialist training account for this difference.
  3. Perceptual-motor performance (i.e., technical skills): This domain is seemingly best suited to anesthesia education and the growing use of skill simulators. The challenge is to break down complex tasks (e.g., regional block performance, epidural placement, fiberoptic intubation) into discrete, measurable components that can each be the focus of deliberate practice sessions. Optimal performance feedback whether through automated motion metrics, expert observation, or structured video review is also a fruitful area of research.

Whether you are researching a new simulator to practice a technical skill or designing a new subspecialty curriculum, consider applying the concepts of deliberate practice to help your learners stay on the road to expert performance!

February 2022: Education Research - Foundations and Practical Advice

The SEA Research Committee provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. Alternatively, we feature a summary of educational theories to broaden your foundation in educational research and curriculum development.  

This month, Dr. Lauren Buhl (Instructor of Anesthesiology at Harvard Medical School and Associate Residency Program Director at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) shares a discussion over “Noise”: its definition and difference from Bias, types of noise. She further details the implication of noise in our professional judgements (ex., resident selection process) and offers six steps of noise minimization protocol.

As we enter the season of rank lists and residency and fellowship matching, many of us are awash in discussions of holistic review processes and anti-bias training, while little attention is paid to the more insidious yet pervasive problem of noise in human judgement. A new book by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman titled “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgement” seeks to address this imbalance as it reminds us again and again, “Where there is judgement, there is noise, and more of it than you think.”

Bias vs. Noise

Most of us are familiar with the distinct concepts of accuracy and precision in measurement. Matters of judgement can be viewed as measurements in which the instrument used is the human mind. In this sense, miscalibration is analogous to bias, whereas imprecision is analogous to noise. Bias feels like an identifiable problem that we can measure and address with proper training and vigilance, and the elimination of bias carries a heavy moral imperative. As such, addressing bias receives nearly all of our attention in discussions about improving professional judgements. Noise, on the other hand, seems like an abstract statistical concept with no intrinsic moral imperative and no specific path to combat it. The contribution of noise to unfairness and injustice in world, however, can be equal to or even surpass that of bias, and efforts to reduce noise should receive considerably more attention than they are currently paid.

Is noise a bad thing?

Some amount of noise is judgement is arguably not a bad thing. What kind of world would it be if everyone judged everything in exactly the same way every single time? We understand that unlike matters of fact on which no reasonable person would disagree (e.g., the sun will rise in the East tomorrow), judgement allows for a bounded range of disagreement. The problem is that what most people consider to be an acceptable range of disagreement is much smaller than the actual ranges of disagreement observed in the world. In a study of asylum cases randomly assigned to different judges, the admission range was between 5% and 88%, a veritable lottery. While I have not found a similar study of anesthesia residency application reviewers and applicants offered an interview, the range is probably just as shockingly large.

Types of noise

Noise can come from many sources, but it is helpful to divide total system noise into level noise and pattern noiseLevel noise can be measured using the variability of the average judgements made by different people and is something we all recognize in the existence of harsh reviewers and lenient reviewers. Even within our own abstract scoring processes at SEA, it is clear that some reviewers give consistently lower scores across all abstracts, while other reviewers give consistently higher scores. Level noise is commonly related to ambiguity in scoring systems anchored by words such as “mostly” or “sometimes” that mean different things to different people rather than anchoring with more specific examples.

When level noise is removed from total system noise, what remains is pattern noise. Unlike level noise where both harsh and lenient reviewers may still rank abstracts in the same order, pattern noise produces different rankings based on individual predilections and idiosyncratic responses of reviewers to the same abstract. In general, pattern noise tends to be larger than level noise as a component of total system noise. Some pattern noise is fixed, as when reviewers give harsher scores to abstracts within their area of expertise and more lenient scores to abstracts that are more removed from their own work. On the other hand, some pattern noise is variable, as when the same reviewer might give different scores to the same abstracts in the morning than in the afternoon, when the weather is bright and sunny vs. gray and gloomy, or after their favorite football team loses.

The “mediating assessments protocol” to minimize noise

At one extreme, the complete elimination of noise in judgements would require an algorithmic approach that carries its own risk of systematic bias and is often unsatisfying to those being judged, who feel like the specifics of their individual situation are not being seen or heard, and to those doing the judging, who feel like their hands are tied without the ability to exercise some amount of discretion. A more realistic goal is to minimize noise by exercising decision hygiene. One such approach for professional judgements (e.g., evaluation of residency applicants) is the mediating assessments protocol designed by Daniel Kahneman and colleagues. The protocol consists of six steps:

1)    Structure the decision into mediating assessments or dimensions in which it will be measured. In the context of residency applicants, decisions are commonly broken down into mediating assessments such as academic achievements, evidence of resilience and grit, and overlap of applicant goals with program strengths. 

2)    When possible, mediating assessments should be made using an outside view. This “outside view” relies on relative judgements (i.e., this applicant’s test scores are in the 2nd quartile with respect to our pool of applicants) as opposed to fact-based judgements (i.e., this applicant has good test scores).

3)    In the analytical phase, the assessments should be independent of one another. Ideally, the reviewers assessing academic achievement should be different from the reviewers assessing resilience and grit and different from the reviewers assessing the overlap of applicant goals with program strengths.

4)    In the decision meeting, each assessment should be reviewed separately.

5)    Participants in the decision meeting should make their judgements individually, then use an estimate-talk-estimate approach. This approach involves individuals giving their initial ratings in a secret vote, sharing the distribution of ratings to guide discussion, then individuals giving their subsequent ratings in another secret vote, thereby gaining the advantages of both deliberation and averaging independent opinions.

6)    To make the final decision, intuition should be delayed, but not banned. By frontloading the process with careful analytics and independent assessments, intuition becomes more firmly grounded in fact-based metrics and thoroughly discussed ratings than it would have been if applied at the beginning of the process.

The difficulty lies in applying this process for decision hygiene to an expansive endeavor like residency applications, where programs may be confronted with 1,500 applications and limited time and personnel to consider them. Certainly, aspects of decision hygiene may still be applied, such as linear sequential unmasking where individual parts of the application are revealed to reviewers sequentially (i.e., essay, then letters of recommendation, then test scores, then medical school, etc.), thereby limiting the formation of premature intuition. Alternatively, the full mediating assessments protocol may be achievable on a smaller scale (e.g., only the applicants on the cusp of being ranked to match).

While the best way to address noise in judgements may vary, noise reduction should not be overlooked in favor of focusing on bias reduction, and in fact, reducing noise may make bias more readily identifiable and, thus, correctable. 

Lauren Buhl, MD, PhD 
Associate Residency Program Director
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Instructor of Anesthesiology at Harvard Medical School

January 2022: Education Research - Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)

The SEA Research Committee provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. Alternatively, we feature a summary of educational theories to broaden your foundation in educational research and curriculum development.  

This month, Dr. Lauren Buhl (Instructor of Anesthesiology at Harvard Medical School and Associate Residency Program Director at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) shares an overview of Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and provides tips on how you can apply it in your own research.

In his commencement speech at Kenyon College in 2005, David Foster Wallace began with a story about some fish:

There are two young fish swimming along who happen to meet an older fish. The older fish nods at them and says:

‘Morning boys, how’s the water?’

The two young fish swim on for a bit and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and asks:

‘What the hell is water?’

This parable nicely illustrates how we often become overly focused on a single subject or perspective and fail to recognize the complex system surrounding us. Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) can provide a lens through which to view and analyze these complex systems in the context of medical education research, curriculum design, and performance evaluation.

What is Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT)

First developed by Vygotsky in the late 1970s and later expanded in the field of medical education by Engeström, CHAT starts from the basic unit of the activity system to outline the many interdependent relationships that make up a complex system designed to achieve an overarching outcome or end product. Consider the example of a CA-2 resident learning to perform peripheral nerve blocks on their regional anesthesia rotation (see figure).

The activity system includes the following components:

  • Subject: the person engaged in the activity (CA-2 anesthesia resident)
  • Object: the purpose of the activity (achieving proficiency in peripheral nerve blocks)
  • Community: the group to which the subject belongs and those affected by the activity (regional anesthesia attending/fellow/nurse practitioner, patient, peri-operative nurse, surgeon)
  • Tools: the objects that facilitate the activity, both physical (ultrasound machine) and symbolic (knowledge of brachial plexus anatomy)
  • Rules: the norms, expectations, and power relationships that guide the activity (ASRA guidelines, safety checklists, attending preferences)
  • Division of labor: the ways the activity is divided among the community (placement of the IV and patient monitors, preparation of medications and supplies, performance and documentation of the nerve block)

Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT): A tool to identify conflicts and tensions

The arrows connecting each of these components speak to the ways in which they are all shaped and affected by each other. Naturally, there will be conflicts and tensions within the activity system (e.g., the patient may want the regional anesthesia attending to perform the procedure, but this is at odds with the object of achieving proficiency in peripheral nerve blocks for the CA-2 anesthesia resident). The resolution of these conflicts can provide many fruitful avenues for research, and when the resulting data are viewed in the context of the overall activity system rather than the individual relationships between components, the conclusions can be more nuanced and broadly applicable.

There can also be conflict between activity systems, as each subject may find themselves working in multiple activity systems with conflicting objects. If we add a medical student into the example, our CA-2 resident now functions in one activity system as a learner and another activity system as a teacher. These two systems have some overlapping outcomes (professional development) but also some conflicting outcomes (technical skill for resident-as-learner and teaching evaluations for resident-as-teacher). 

Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT): How to apply it to your research

Using CHAT, medical educators and researcher can develop and study interventions that address these conflicts (i.e., only pairing medical students with more senior residents or combining teaching evaluations from multiple perspectives rather than just from the medical student).

I hope this description of CHAT will help you analyze the complex circumstances in which we work, teach, and learn using activity systems to help identify areas of conflict and tension that provide great starting points for new approaches and research.

November 2021: Education Research - Foundations and Practical Advice: Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

The SEA Research Committee provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. Alternatively, we feature a summary of educational theories to broaden your foundation in educational research and curriculum development.  

This month, Dr. Lauren Buhl (Instructor of Anesthesiology at Harvard Medical School and Associate Residency Program Director at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) shares an overview of self-determination theory (SDT) and provides tips on how you can apply it in your own research.

Motivation and the ways in which we can create it, maintain it, and direct it into useful behaviors is a constant in nearly all domains of life. As such, social scientists and psychologists have generated an array of theories describing the motivational process and suggesting how it might be harnessed to produce desired outcomes. In medical education, motivation is critical to achieving our goal of promoting learning among our students. Self-determination theory (SDT) is widely considered to be the dominant theory in the psychology of motivation, and as such, it is often a useful lens through which to consider curriculum development and research projects in medical education.

First developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan at the University of Rochester in the early 1970s, SDT stems from the principle that humans are growth-oriented and observations that we experience improved performance, achievement, and well-being when our behaviors are internally motivated rather than driven by an external source. A goal for medical educators, then, should be to create contexts in which motivation and behavior regulation can be moved from external sources to fully internalized. This continuum is described as follows:

  • External regulation: following a rule you actively disagree with because of threat of punishment or potential for reward
  • Introjected regulation: following a rule because it is a rule
  • Identified regulation: following a rule because you understand its importance
  • Integrated regulation: following a rule because it is consistent with your own personal norms and values
  • Intrinsic regulation: following a rule because it defines who you are

This process of internalization of motivation and behavioral regulation requires the satisfaction of three innate psychological needs: a need for autonomy, a need for competence, and a need for relatedness. When attempting to apply SDT, the question you might ask yourself while conducting an observational study or designing a research project is, “How well are these psychological needs being met?”

 Observational studies
  • Explaining a phenomenon that you have observed in medical education (e.g., attendance at resident lectures is consistently poor)
    • Studies of this nature often use qualitative approaches such as focus groups or semi-structured interviews.
    • As themes emerge during qualitative data analysis (grounded theory, framework analysis), SDT can be applied to see how those themes relate to autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
 Research projects
  • Comparing performance disparities across existing contexts (e.g., studying why medical students who participated in a problem-based learning curriculum perform better on clinical rotations that those who participated in a more traditional lecture-based curriculum)
    • The degree of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and individual components of autonomy, competence, and relatedness can be measured within each context to assess if differences in any of these components of SDT correlate with performance metrics (see “Useful measurement tools” below).
Curriculum Development
  • Planning clinical rotations for residents (e.g., developing a milestones-based schedule for progression through subspecialty rotations rather than a time-based schedule
    • Curriculum design should take into account trainees’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as these can increase intrinsic motivation.
    • Similar to the “Research Project” above, curricula can be assessed based on their ability to quantitatively increase the degree of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and individual components of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Useful measurement tools: see for a full list
  • Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire: gives separate scores on intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation and external regulation
  • Self-Determination Scale: assesses the extent to which people tend to function in a self-determined way
  • Learning Climate Questionnaire: measures students' perceptions of autonomy support in their educational setting
  • Perceived Competence for Learning Questionnaire: measures how students perceive their competence in their learning
  • Basic Psychological Needs Scale: measures the extent to which an individual feels his needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness are satisfied in general life or at work

I hope this description of SDT and its many potential applications will aid you when designing your next curriculum intervention or research project or even just in your day-to-day teaching interactions!

October 2021: Education Research - Foundations and Practical Advice: SEAd Grant Application

This month, Drs. Nina Deutsch (Associate Professor of Anesthesiology and Pediatrics; Vice Chief of Academic Affairs; Director, Cardiac Anesthesiology, Children’s National Hospital) and Franklyn P. Cladis (Professor of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine; Program Director, Pediatric Anesthesiology Fellowship; Clinical Director, Pediatric Perioperative Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC) share the tips to make your SEAd Grant Application more competitive in the review process.

The Society for Education in Anesthesia (SEA) SEAd Grant provides an outstanding opportunity to fund a starter education research project led by aspiring faculty members of SEA that have no previous funding. First awarded in 2016, the $10,000 SEAd Grant is bestowed annually and stipulates that the recipient be given non-clinical time by their department to complete the project.

Here, we provide you with practical tips to help you to submit a competitive SEAd Grant application. The objectives are to stress the prerequisites for the grant submission, what constitutes a strong application, and the key schedule for your grant proposal submission.

1) Prerequisites of SEAd Grant submission

Your proposed project must be related to education! We will not accept an application purely on clinical research or basic research.

Applicants must:

  • Be a current member of the SEA.
  • Have received no prior non-departmental (“outside”) research funding.
  • Be within 10 years of starting an academic / teaching career.
  • Present an original education research idea.
  • Name a mentor and submit a mentoring plan.
  • Have the full support of the Departmental Chair, who must sign off on the grant application and agree to grant the applicant additional non-clinical time (minimum of 2 non-clinical days per month), if awarded.
  • Submit a budget plan. This grant does not cover overhead or salaries, as it is a starter grant. While the SEAd grant cannot be applied to salary support, it can be used to support costs for professional services from salaried professionals that are essential for the planning or execution of the project (e.g. statistician fees).
  • Agree to present the completed study (or a progress report) at the Spring SEA Meeting following the award, including a financial report detailing how the grant was used.
  • Submit a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal for publication, with acknowledgement of SEAd Grant funding.

2) What Constitutes a Strong Submission

The SEAd Grant was created with the intention to fund innovative education research projects which will improve the learning opportunities of trainees, medical students, and/or faculty members. Some key points that make applications stronger during consideration:

  • The proposal should address a novel and interesting area within anesthesiology education in which there is a current gap in knowledge. Strong applications provide background information regarding the current state of education in the area that the project aims to address so that the selection committee better understands the need for the proposed study.
  • The study should have a clear and relevant question that it will answer. The applicant should explicitly state the purpose of the project and specific aims that the project will accomplish. Projects with clearly defined and achievable goals are more likely to be funded.
  • There should be a stated hypothesis that is in-line with the specific aims of the project.
  • The project’s design and methods should be well described so that the selection committee can best understand how the study will be carried out. This should include defining:
    • Who will the study subjects be?
    • What interventions will be implemented?
    • How will the researcher measure the impact of the proposed intervention so that it can be compared to the current baseline? Strong projects have a measurable impact beyond learner satisfaction. This can include a demonstrated improvement in knowledge, behavior or impact on patient care (Kirkpatrick 2, 3, and 4 levels).
  • A description of the proposed statistical analysis should be provided. Strong applications have been reviewed by a statistician to confirm that the sample size and study methods will achieve the desired goal.
  • Potential areas of error or complications that could be encountered should be addressed so that the committee can see that these will be addressed should they arise.
  • Projects should be applicable to other learners in the future. Descriptions of how a project can have a wider future impact allow the committee to see that the grant can have a stronger impact in the field.
  • The applicant should have the appropriate resources and mentorship in place to help the project be successful. A strong letter from the mentor and the Chair of their department that describes these resources will help the committee see that these needs can be met. While a mentor does not need to be within the same department as the principal investigator, there needs to be evidence that they will be able to have a productive working relationship.
  • The project can be completed within the one-year timeframe of the grant cycle and with the proposed budget.

3) Key Schedule

The SEAd Grant application process will consist of two phases. The selection committee will review all Phase 1 applications and will invite the top three applicants to complete Phase 2.

Phase 1 should include the following and must be submitted to [email protected]:

  1. Abstract (500-word limit) to briefly describe the study and the intent of the study.
  2. Budget (please take into consideration that the grant does not cover overhead or salaries, as it is a starter grant).
  3. CV.

Phase 1 begins 10/01/2021 with the deadline of 01/03/2022. From 01/03/2022 through 01/21/2022, the Selection Committee will review the abstracts and invite the top three abstracts to complete Phase 2. Applicants will be notified of a decision around 1/28/2022.

Phase 2 will include the following and must be submitted to [email protected]:

  1. Bio sketch of applicant (click to download).
  2. Bio sketch of the mentor(s) (click to download).
  3. A personal statement (part of bio sketch).
  4. Detailed research plan – should include the objective, background and significance, design and methods, and references.
  5. Mentoring plan.
  6. Letters of support and commitment from:
    1. Chair-must agree to additional non-clinical time (minimum of 2 non-clinical days per month).
    2. Mentor(s).

Phase 2 of the application process will occur from 01/28/2022 with the deadline of 02/28/2022. The recipient of the SEAd Grant is expected to participate in the SEA Spring Meeting (April 8, 2022 to April 10, 2022). At this meeting, the recipient will be announced during the awards session on April 9, 2022.

We hope the above tips will be helpful to you as you write your SEAd Grant proposal. We are looking forward to receiving your submission!

September 2021: Education Research - Foundations and Practical Advice: SEA Meeting Abstract and Presentation

The SEA Research Committee provides practical advice for planning, executing, and submitting your scholarly works in educational research and curriculum development. Alternatively, we feature a summary of educational theories to broaden your foundation in educational research and curriculum development.

This month, Drs. Deborah Schwengel (Associate Professor of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) and Melissa Davidson (Professor of Anesthesiology, the University of Vermont Medical Center) share the tips to make your Spring SEA meeting abstract and presentation more completive in the review process. 

This piece aims to provide you practical tips to help you construct a competitive abstract for the Spring SEA meeting. The objectives are to stress the prerequisites for the SEA Spring meeting abstract submission, what constitutes a strong abstract in the “Innovative Curriculum” section and “Research” section, respectively, and the key schedule for your abstract submission to the 2022 Spring SEA meeting on April 8-10, 2022, at Pittsburgh, PA. 

1) Prerequisites of SEA Spring meeting abstract submission

Your abstract must be related to education! Be aware, especially if you are planning to submit a research abstract. We will not accept an abstract purely on clinical research or basic research.

2) Innovation Curriculum Abstract 

This category welcomes any “innovative curriculum” which has improved the learning opportunity of trainees, medical students, and faculty members.

However, to write a solid abstract to get into the prestigious Oral Presentation, where the Philip Liu Best Abstract Award with a cash prize of $1,000 will be chosen, you would like to demonstrate the evidence of curriculum implementation.

A survey of the learners’ impressions or a report of before-and-after knowledge gain (e.g. pre-/post-test) could be evidence of curriculum implementation.

Attached here is the Philip Liu Best Innovative Curriculum Abstract Award winner's submission at the 2021 SEA Spring meeting for your reference.

If you have multiple outcomes to present, you could consider submitting your abstract to Research Abstract Category instead. 

3) Research Abstract 

The SEA Research Committee is updating the scoring rubric to differentiate the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted abstracts to select candidates for the Philip Liu Best Research Abstract Award. We believe the best advice to you is to share our core scoring rubric at this point; thus, you will have an opportunity to review and improve your abstract critically. We have set two evaluation components: Analytic and Holistic.

Analytic evaluations: 

  1. Is the study’s research question clear and relevant?
  2. Does the study add anything new to current knowledge and understanding? Are topic, methods, findings novel?
  3. Does the study test a stated hypothesis?
  4. Is the design of the study appropriate to the research question?
  5. Do the study methods address vital potential sources of error, bias, and impact of variables?
  6. Were the statistical analyses appropriate and applied correctly?
  7. Is there a clear statement of findings?
  8. Does the data support the authors’ conclusions?
  9. Are there any conflicts of interest or ethical concerns?
  10. Is the writing coherent and effective?

Holistic evaluations:

  1. Is the topic interesting, and would you like to hear it as an oral presentation?
  2. Impact/relevance – would you incorporate this into your program’s teaching?

We admit you cannot address the Holistic evaluations directly; however, the list of the items in the Analytic evaluations could help you review your abstract before submission critically.  

Attached here is the Philip Liu Best Research Abstract Award winner's submission at the 2021 SEA Spring meeting for your reference.

4) Key Schedule

  • 9/1/2021 – 11/1/2021: Submission Period
  • 11/1/2021 – 12/1/2021: Review Period
  • 12/1/2021 – 12/10/2021: Selection Period
  • 12/15/2021: Notification of Acceptance/Rejection and presentation format (Oral vs. Poster)

We hope the above tips would be of help for your abstract writing. We are looking forward to receiving your abstract submission!