Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32993627›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2020

Barriers to obtaining reliable results from evaluations of teaching quality in undergraduate medical education.

Zemiao Zhang, Qi Wu, Xinping Zhang, Juyang Xiong, Lan Zhang, Hong Le

Abstract read
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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Zemiao ZhangSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Qi WuSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Xinping ZhangSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Juyang XiongSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Lan ZhangSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Hong LeSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. lehonglehong@163.com.

Funding

Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN) 3005516111
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical education is characterized by numerous features that are different from other higher education programmes, and evaluations of teaching quality are an integral part of medical education. Although scholars have made extensive efforts to enhance the quality of teaching, various issues unrelated to teaching that interfere with the accuracy of evaluation results remain. The purpose of this study is to identify the barriers that prevent objective and reliable results from being obtained during the evaluation process.

methodsThis study used mixed methods (3 data sources) to collect opinions from different stakeholders. Based on purposive sampling, 16 experts familiar with teaching management and 12 s- and third-year students were invited to participate in interviews and discussions, respectively. Additionally, based on systematic random sampling, 74 teachers were invited to complete a questionnaire survey. All qualitative data were imported into NVivo software and analysed using thematic analysis in chronological order and based on grounded theory. Statistical analyses of the questionnaire results were conducted using SPSS software.

resultsSixty-nine valid questionnaires (93.24%) were recovered. A total of 29 open codes were extracted, and 14 axial codes were summarized and divided into four selective codes: evaluation preparation, the index system, the operation process, and the consequences of evaluation. The main barriers to obtaining reliable evaluation results included inadequate attention, unreasonable weighting, poor teaching facilities, an index without pertinence and appropriate descriptions, bad time-points, incomplete information on the system, lagged feedback, and disappointing result application. Almost all participants suggested lowering the weight of students as subjects, with a weight of 50-60% being appropriate. Students showed dissatisfaction with evaluation software, and the participants disagreed over the definition of good teaching and the management of student attendance.

conclusionsThis study reveals the difficulties and problems in current evaluations of teaching in medical education. Collecting data from multiple stakeholders helps in better understanding the evaluation process. Educators need to be aware of various issues that may affect the final results when designing the evaluation system and interpreting the results. More research on solutions to these problems and the development of a reasonable evaluation system is warranted.

Indexed as

Educational PersonnelEducation, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalFeedbackHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTeachingEvaluation of teaching qualityInterviewsIssues unrelated to teachingMedical educationUndergraduate

Identifiers

PMID32993627
PMCPMC7523339

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.