{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024405908798972382, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005780346820809248, 'mean_word_length': 5.546218487394958, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluating pre‐clerkship professionalism in longitudinal small groups

teaching responsibilities in residency. We believed that the Mini-CPX would provide a rich teaching opportunity for selected fourth-year students without compromising the quality of the exam for the thirdyear students. What was done We created a programme for 8 fourthyear students to facilitate Mini-CPX teaching sessions for groups of 6 third-year students under faculty supervision. Faculty were expected primarily to observe, and to contribute only if clarification of teaching points were necessary. We also developed a syllabus for facilitators that included evidence-based strategies for teaching physical examination skills in a small group setting. In preparation for teaching, fourth-year students reviewed the syllabus and attended a brief orientation session run by the standardised patient trainer. Following the teaching session, third-year students completed a post-exam survey evaluating the effectiveness of paired fourth-year student ⁄faculty preceptors compared with faculty preceptors alone. Additionally, fourth-year students completed a postfacilitation survey regarding their Mini-CPX teaching experience. Both surveys employed a 5-point (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree) Likert scale format. A 2-tailed student’s t-test, carried out at the a ¼ 0.05 level, was used to determine statistically significant differences between satisfaction with fourth-year student preceptors and faculty preceptors. Evaluation of results and impact Ninety-five per cent