QR Code Sub-Analysis

Results

• Completion Ratio Model (QR Evaluations)
  • MD students had a 14.2% higher completion ratio than DO students (p = 0.016).
  • Home rotations were associated with a 6.1% higher completion ratio than away rotations; this was not statistically significant (p = 0.392).
  • Male students had a 7.2% lower completion ratio than female students; this was not statistically significant (p = 0.158).
  • The model explained 29% of the variance in completion ratio (Adjusted R² = 0.23).
• Predicted Completion Ratios (Marginal Means)
  • MD students consistently showed higher predicted completion ratios than DO students across gender and rotation type.
  • No observed students had the combination of DO + Home; this combination was excluded from predictions.
  • Predicted completion ratios ranged from 0.52 (DO, Away, Male) to 0.80 (MD, Home, Female).
• Total Evaluations Received Model
  • MD students received an average of 3.1 more evaluations than DO students (p = 0.019).
  • Home students received 3 more evaluations than away students; this approached significance (p = 0.072).
  • Male students received 0.6 fewer evaluations than female students; this was not statistically significant (p = 0.612).
  • The model explained 33% of the variance in total evaluations received (Adjusted R² = 0.28).
• Predicted Total Evaluations Received (Marginal Means)
  • Predicted number of evaluations ranged from 7.3 (DO, Away, Male) to 13.5 (MD, Home, Female).
  • As with the completion model, DO + Home predictions were excluded due to absence in observed data.
• Completion Ratio by Month
  • An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate whether QR code evaluation completion ratios differed by rotation month.
  • There was no statistically significant difference in completion ratios across months, F(10, 42) = 0.612, p = 0.795.
• Assumption Checks
  • Levene’s test indicated homogeneity of variances across months, p = 0.390.
  • Some months had low numbers of observations (e.g., January), limiting normality testing; however, boxplots did not suggest major violations.

Completion Ratio Linear Regression and Predictions

Characteristic	Beta1	SE
MD vs DO
DO	—	—
MD	0.14*	0.056
Home vs Away
Away	—	—
Home	0.06	0.071
Male vs Female
female	—	—
male	-0.07	0.050
Abbreviations: CI = Confidence Interval, SE = Standard Error
1 *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Predicted QR Completion Percentage by Group
Gender	Degree	Rotation	Predicted Completion %	Lower CI	Upper CI
female	DO	Away	59.4%	50.0%	68.9%
male	DO	Away	52.2%	43.7%	60.7%
female	MD	Away	73.6%	63.6%	83.6%
male	MD	Away	66.4%	56.4%	76.4%
female	MD	Home	79.7%	67.7%	91.7%
male	MD	Home	72.5%	59.5%	85.5%

Total Evaluation Recieved Linear Regression and Predictions

Characteristic	Beta1	SE
MD vs DO
DO	—	—
MD	3.1*	1.27
Home vs Away
Away	—	—
Home	3.0	1.60
Male vs Female
female	—	—
male	-0.58	1.14
Abbreviations: CI = Confidence Interval, SE = Standard Error
1 *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Predicted QR Evaluations Received by Group
Gender	Degree	Rotation	Predicted Evals	Lower CI	Upper CI
female	DO	Away	10.39	8.25	12.53
male	DO	Away	9.81	7.87	11.74
female	MD	Away	13.51	11.24	15.77
male	MD	Away	12.92	10.66	15.19
female	MD	Home	16.47	13.75	19.19
male	MD	Home	15.89	12.93	18.84

ANOVA: Completion Ratio by Month
Source	DF	Sum of Squares	Mean Square	F Value	p-value
month	10	0.202	0.020	0.612	0.795
Residuals	42	1.385	0.033	NA	NA