Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33308207›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2020

Peer assessment of professionalism in undergraduate medical education.

Vernon R Curran, Nicholas A Fairbridge, Diana Deacon

Open access · goldAbstract 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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. A Multilayered Approach to Professionalism Assessment in Physician Assistant Education: Tracking Growth Beyond Zero-Tolerance Policies.The journal of physician assistant education : the official journal of the Physician Assistant Education Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vernon R CurranOffice of Professional and Educational Development, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, A1B 3V6, Canada. vcurran@mun.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2432-6633
Nicholas A FairbridgeOffice of Professional and Educational Development, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, A1B 3V6, Canada.
Diana DeaconOffice of Professional and Educational Development, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, A1B 3V6, Canada.
Memorial University of Newfoundland · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFostering professional behaviour has become increasingly important in medical education and non-traditional approaches to assessment of professionalism may offer a more holistic representation of students' professional behaviour development. Emerging evidence suggests peer assessment may offer potential as an alternative method of professionalism assessment. We introduced peer assessment of professionalism in pre-clerkship phases of undergraduate medical education curriculum at our institution and evaluated suitability of adopting a professional behaviour scale for longitudinal tracking of student development, and student comfort and acceptance of peer assessment.

methodsPeer assessment was introduced using a validated professional behaviours scale. Students conducted repeated, longitudinal assessments of their peers from small-group, clinical skills learning activities. An electronic assessment system was used to collect peer assessments, collate and provide reports to students. Student opinions of peer assessment were initially surveyed before introducing the process, confirmatory analyses were conducted of the adopted scale, and students were surveyed to explore satisfaction with the peer assessment process.

resultsStudents across all phases of the curriculum were initially supportive of anonymous peer assessment using small-group learning sessions. Peer scores showed improvement over time, however the magnitude of increase was limited by ceiling effects attributed to the adopted scale. Students agreed that the professional behaviours scale was easy to use and understand, however a majority disagreed that peer assessment improved their understanding of professionalism or was a useful learning experience.

conclusionsPeer assessment of professional behaviours does expose students to the process of assessing one's peers, however the value of such processes at early stages of medical education may not be fully recognized nor appreciated by students. Electronic means for administering peer assessment is feasible for collecting and reporting peer feedback. Improvement in peer assessed scores was observed over time, however student opinions of the educational value were mixed and indeterminate.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalCurriculumHumansPeer GroupPeer ReviewProfessionalismPeer assessmentProfessionalismUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID33308207
PMCPMC7731547
OpenAlexW3111989515

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.