Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32591021›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2020

How is self-regulated learning documented in e-portfolios of trainees? A content analysis.

R van der Gulden, S Heeneman, A W M Kramer, R F J M Laan, N D Scherpbier-de Haan, B P A Thoonen

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Portfolio of learning in clinical training.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

R van der GuldenRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Rozemarijn.vanderGulden@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0815-7793
S HeenemanDepartment of Pathology, School of Health Professions Education, School of Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
A W M KramerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
R F J M LaanRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Radboudumc Health Academy, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
N D Scherpbier-de HaanRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
B P A ThoonenRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is assumed that portfolios contribute to self-regulated learning (SRL). Presence of these SRL processes within the documentation kept in portfolios is presupposed in common educational practices, such as the assessment of reflective entries. However, questions can be asked considering the presence of SRL within portfolios. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the documentation of SRL processes within the electronic (e)-portfolio content of medical trainees. SRL consists of numerous processes, for this study the focus was on self-assessment via reflection and feedback, goal-setting and planning, and monitoring, as these are the processes that health professions education research mentions to be supported by portfolios.

methodsA database containing 1022 anonymous e-portfolios from General Practitioner trainees was used to provide descriptive statistics of the various available e-portfolio forms. This was followed by a quantitative content analysis of 90 e-portfolios, for which, a codebook was constructed to rate the documentation of the included SRL processes.

resultsThe numbers of forms in the e-portfolios varied to a great extent. Content analysis showed a limited documentation of reflective entries, and available entries mainly described events and experiences without explanations and context. Feedback was generally limited to comments on what went well and lacked specificity, context and suggestions for future action. Learning goals and plans were short of specificity, but did contain challenging topics and different goals were compatible with each other. 75% of the e-portfolios showed (limited) signs of monitoring.

conclusionsThe e-portfolio content showed limited documentation of SRL processes. As documentation of SRL requires time and asks for a high level of introspection and writing skills, one cannot expect documentation of SRL processes to appear in e-portfolio content without efforts.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceDocumentationEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateLearningSelf-AssessmentDatabases, FactualHumansContent analysisElectronic-portfolioFeedbackLearning goalsReflectionSelf-regulated learning

Identifiers

PMID32591021
PMCPMC7318487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.