ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Measuring assessment standards in undergraduate medical programs: Development and validation of AIM tool.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation and cut-off scoring of the assessment implementation measure (AIM) tool in undergraduate medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Development and validation of teacher and student questionnaires measuring inhibitors of curriculum viability.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Technology Enhanced Assessment (TEA) in COVID 19 Pandemic.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2020Article
- Impact of COVID Pandemic and Hybrid teaching on Final year MBBS students' End of clerkship Exam performance.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a tool to evaluate faculty perceptions of assessment quality in an undergraduate medical program.
methodsThe Assessment Implementation Measure (AIM) tool was developed by a mixed method approach. A preliminary questionnaire developed through literature review was submitted to a panel of 10 medical education experts for a three-round 'Modified Delphi technique'. Panel agreement of > 75% was considered the criterion for inclusion of items in the questionnaire. Cognitive pre-testing of five faculty members was conducted. Pilot study was done with 30 randomly selected faculty members. Content validity index (CVI) was calculated for individual items (I-CVI) and composite scale (S-CVI). Cronbach's alpha was calculated to determine the internal consistency reliability of the tool.
resultsThe final AIM tool had 30 items after the Delphi process. S-CVI was 0.98 with the S-CVI/Avg method and 0.86 by S-CVI/UA method, suggesting good content validity. Cut-off value of < 0.9 I-CVI was taken as criterion for item deletion. Cognitive pre-testing revealed good item interpretation. Cronbach's alpha calculated for the AIM was 0.9, whereas Cronbach's alpha for the four domains ranged from 0.67 to 0.80.
conclusions'AIM' is a relevant and useful instrument with good content validity and reliability of results, and may be used to evaluate the teachers´ perceptions about assessment quality.
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.