Trial reportBMC medical education2019
Peer assessment to improve medical student's contributions to team-based projects: randomised controlled trial and qualitative follow-up.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A cluster randomised crossover trial of single resilience and professionalism tutorials among undergraduate medical students.Medical education online · 2025Trial
- Experience in developing and implementing the self-directed learning assessment tools among undergraduate medical students.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2024Article
- Comparing paper-based and mobile application for rank-based peer assessment in interprofessional education: before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Passivity, task segmentation, and relational capital: a study of interpersonal relationship formation among freshman medical students in team-based activities.Korean journal of medical education · 2023Article
- Peer Feedback: Recommendations for Behavior Analysts' Training and Supervision.Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Review
- Integrated clinical case discussions - a fully student-organized peer-teaching program on internal medicine.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- 'Everyone is trying to outcompete each other': a qualitative study of medical student attitudes to a novel peer-assessed undergraduate teamwork module.FEBS open bio · 2022Article
- Can Peer Assessment Impact Self-efficacy During Small-Group Learning?PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) · 2022Article
- Final Year Medical Students' Perspective on the Use of Peer Assessments in the Training of Future Doctors to Obtain and Provide Quality Feedback [Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 2020Article
- Professional Identity Formation, Professionalism, Leadership and Resilience (PILLAR) in Medical Students: Methodology and Early Results.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical schools increasingly incorporate teamwork in their curricula but medical students often have a negative perception of team projects, in particular when there is unequal participation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a novel peer evaluation system improves teamwork contributions and reduces the risk of students "free loading".
methodsA cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with qualitative follow up enrolled 37 teams (n = 223 students). Participating teams were randomised to intervention group (19 teams) or control group (18 teams). The validated Comprehensive Assessment Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) tool was used as the outcome measure, and was completed at baseline (week 2) and at the end of the project (week 10). The team contribution subscale was the primary outcome, with other subscales as secondary outcomes. Six focus group discussions were held with students to capture the team's experiences and perceptions of peer assessment and its effects on team work.
resultsThe results of the RCT showed that there was no difference in team contribution, and other forms of team effectiveness, between intervention and control teams. The focus group discussions highlighted students' negative attitudes, and lack of implementation of this transparent, points-based peer assessment system, out of fear of future consequences for relationships with peers. The need to assess peers in a transparent way to stimulate open discussion was perceived as threatening by participants. Teams suggested that other peer assessment systems could work such as rewarding additional or floating marks to high performing team members.
conclusionsOther models of peer assessment need to be developed and tested that are non-threatening and that facilitate early acceptance of this mode of assessment.
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.