Trial reportBMC medicine2017
A randomised trial of the influence of racial stereotype bias on examiners' scores, feedback and recollections in undergraduate clinical exams.
Trial report in BMC medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does learner handover bias ratings, entrustment decisions, and feedback across repeated encounters with the same resident?Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Adjustment of Assessors' First Impressions Differs by Student Ethnicity.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Trial
- The influence of candidates' physical attributes on patient ratings in simulated assessments of clinical practice.Medical teacher · 2022Trial
- An opportunity to be grateful for? Exploring discourses about international medical graduates from India and Pakistan to the UK between 1960 and 1980.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Differential attainment in assessment of postgraduate surgical trainees: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Exploring BAME Student Experiences in Healthcare Courses in the United Kingdom: A Systematic Review.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2024Review
- Article
- Addressing racism in respiratory therapy educational programs: An integrative literature review.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2022Review
- The do's, don'ts and don't knows of redressing differential attainment related to race/ethnicity in medical schools.Perspectives on medical education · 2022Review
- Understanding Healthcare Students' Experiences of Racial Bias: A Narrative Review of the Role of Implicit Bias and Potential Interventions in Educational Settings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Article
- Alternative strategies for closing the award gap between white and minority ethnic students.eLife · 2021Article
- Perils, pitfalls and potential for the use of reporting guidelines in experimental research in medical education.Perspectives on medical education · 2019Article
- Broadly sampled assessment reduces ethnicity-related differences in clinical grades.Medical education · 2019Article
- Suppressing bursting synchronization in a modular neuronal network with synaptic plasticity.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2018Article
- Is it them or is it us? Unravelling ethnic disparities in undergraduate clinical performance.BMC medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAsian medical students and doctors receive lower scores on average than their white counterparts in examinations in the UK and internationally (a phenomenon known as "differential attainment"). This could be due to examiner bias or to social, psychological or cultural influences on learning or performance. We investigated whether students' scores or feedback show influence of ethnicity-related bias; whether examiners unconsciously bring to mind (activate) stereotypes when judging Asian students' performance; whether activation depends on the stereotypicality of students' performances; and whether stereotypes influence examiner memories of performances.
methodsThis is a randomised, double-blinded, controlled, Internet-based trial. We created near-identical videos of medical student performances on a simulated Objective Structured Clinical Exam using British Asian and white British actors. Examiners were randomly assigned to watch performances from white and Asian students that were either consistent or inconsistent with a previously described stereotype of Asian students' performance. We compared the two examiner groups in terms of the following: the scores and feedback they gave white and Asian students; how much the Asian stereotype was activated in their minds (response times to Asian-stereotypical vs neutral words in a lexical decision task); and whether the stereotype influenced memories of student performances (recognition rates for real vs invented stereotype-consistent vs stereotype-inconsistent phrases from one of the videos).
resultsExaminers responded to Asian-stereotypical words (716 ms, 95% confidence interval (CI) 702-731 ms) faster than neutral words (769 ms, 95% CI 753-786 ms, p < 0.001), suggesting Asian stereotypes were activated (or at least active) in examiners' minds. This occurred regardless of whether examiners observed stereotype-consistent or stereotype-inconsistent performances. Despite this stereotype activation, student ethnicity had no influence on examiners' scores; on the feedback examiners gave; or on examiners' memories for one performance.
conclusionsExaminer bias does not appear to explain the differential attainment of Asian students in UK medical schools. Efforts to ensure equality should focus on social, psychological and cultural factors that may disadvantage learning or performance in Asian and other minority ethnic students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.