Table 1. Associations between teaching performance and the role model types for the different DAGs.

Outcome model	Corresponding DAG number	Exposure(s)	Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)
Outcome: Role model as a teacher-supervisor
RM-TS1	1, 2, 5, 6	Teaching performance	71.55 (53.73–95.27)
RM-TS2	3	Teaching performance	41.95 (31.01–56.73)
		Role model physician	2.41 (2.00–.92)
RM-TS3	7	Teaching performance	39.10 (28.78–53.12)
		Role model person	2.44 (2.07–2.87)
RM-TS4	4, 8	Teaching performance	31.06 (22.70–42.50)
		Role model physician	1.84 (1.50–2.25)
		Role model person	2.02 (1.70–2.40)
Outcome: Role model as a physician
RM-phy1	1, 2, 3, 4	Teaching performance	15.82 (12.62–19.82)
RM-phy2	5	Teaching performance	5.52 (4.14–7.37)
		Role model teacher-supervisor	2.79 (2.28–3.40)
RM-phy3	8	Teaching performance	6.61 (5.14–8.51)
		Role model person	3.31 (2.78–3.95)
RM-phy4	6, 7	Teaching performance	3.70 (2.75–4.99)
		Role model teacher-supervisor	2.00 (1.62–2.46)
		Role model person	2.81 (2.35–3.38)
Outcome: Role model as a person
RM-per1	1, 2, 7, 8	Teaching performance	13.65 (11.17–16.70)
RM-per2	6	Teaching performance	4.56 (3.50–5.95)
		Role model teacher-supervisor	2.96 (2.45–3.59)
RM-per3	4	Teaching performance	6.14 (4.89–7.72)
		Role model physician	3.61 (3.00–4.35)
RM-per4	3, 5	Teaching performance	2.80 (2.12–3.69)
		Role model teacher-supervisor	2.41 (1.98–2.93)
		Role model physician	3.15 (2.61–3.81)

All models were additionally adjusted for these covariates: faculty’s sex and years of experience, residents’ sex and residency training year, hospital and specialty.