Effects of (de)motivating supervision styles on junior doctors' intrinsic motivation through basic psychological need frustration and satisfaction: an experimental vignette study.

In clinical practice, junior doctors regularly receive supervision from consultants. Drawing on Basic Psychological Needs Theory, consultants' supervision styles are likely to affect junior doctors' intrinsic motivation differently in terms of psychological need frustration and psychological need satisfaction. To examine the effects of (de)motivating supervision styles, we conducted two experimental vignette studies among junior doctors. In Study 1 (N = 150, 73.3% female), we used a 2 (need support: high vs. low) x 2 (directiveness: high vs. low) between-subjects design and, in Study 2, a within-subjects design with the same factors (N = 46, 71.7% female). Both studies revealed a consistent positive effect of need-supportive supervision styles on psychological need satisfaction (+), need frustration (-), and intrinsic motivation (+). Particularly in Study 2, the main effect of need-supportive styles was strengthened by supervisor's directiveness. Moreover, in both studies, the effects of supervision styles on intrinsic motivation were explained through psychological need frustration and psychological need satisfaction. We discuss the implications of these findings for postgraduate clinical training.

Subjective evidence evaluation survey for many-analysts studies.

Many-analysts studies explore how well an empirical claim withstands plausible alternative analyses of the same dataset by multiple, independent analysis teams. Conclusions from these studies typically rely on a single outcome metric (e.g. effect size) provided by each analysis team. Although informative about the range of plausible effects in a dataset, a single effect size from each team does not provide a complete, nuanced understanding of how analysis choices are related to the outcome. We used the Delphi consensus technique with input from 37 experts to develop an 18-item subjective evidence evaluation survey (SEES) to evaluate how each analysis team views the methodological appropriateness of the research design and the strength of evidence for the hypothesis. We illustrate the usefulness of the SEES in providing richer evidence assessment with pilot data from a previous many-analysts study.