Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34021539›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2021

Medical Students' Perception and Perceived Value of Peer Learning in Undergraduate Clinical Skill Development and Assessment: Mixed Methods Study.

Shaikha Alzaabi, Mohammed Nasaif, Amar Hassan Khamis, Farah Otaki, Nabil Zary, Sharon Mascarenhas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shaikha Alzaabi *Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0218-4056
Mohammed Nasaif *Training and Development Center, Ministry of Health, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1972-2989
Amar Hassan Khamis *Institute for Excellence in Health Professions Education, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8518-3066
Farah Otaki *Institute for Excellence in Health Professions Education, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8944-4948
Nabil Zary *Institute for Excellence in Health Professions Education, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8999-6999
Sharon Mascarenhas *Institute for Excellence in Health Professions Education, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1005-3838
Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences · AEMinistry of Health · AE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effectiveness of peer learning in clinical skill development is well recognized and researched, given the many benefits gained such as enhanced learning, alleviation of the burden on faculty, and early development of teaching skills for future doctors. However, little is known in terms of its effectiveness as an assessment tool and the extent to which peer assessment can be relied upon in the absence of faculty support.

objectiveThis study was conducted to assess medical students' perception toward peer learning, which is based on self-regulated learning as a tool of assessment, and to compare peer evaluation with faculty evaluation of clinical skill performance.

methodsA cohort of 36 third-year medical students were exposed to peer learning (same-level) in clinical skills education for 3 months. A convergent mixed methods approach was adapted to collect data from 3 sources, namely, students' perception of peer learning, performance scores, and reflective observational analysis. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used to assess students' (n=28) perception on the value of peer learning. The students were asked to assess their peers by using a preset checklist on clinical skill performance, and scores were compared to faculty assessment scores. Reflective observational data were collected from observing video recordings of some of the peer learning sessions. The findings from all 3 sources were integrated using joint display analysis.

resultsOut of 28 students, 25 students completed the survey and 20 students perceived peer learning as valuable in clinical skills education. The mean score of peer assessment was higher than that of faculty assessment. There was a significant difference in student performance between supervised teaching and peer learning groups (P=.003). Most students focused on the mastery of skill with little attention to the technique's quality. Further, students were unable to appreciate the relevance of the potential clinical findings of physical examination.

conclusionsPeer learning in clinical skills education, based on self-regulated learning, empowers students to develop a more responsible approach toward their education. However, peer assessment is insufficient to evaluate clinical skill performance in the absence of faculty support. Therefore, we recommend that peer learning activities be preceded by supervised faculty-taught sessions.

Indexed as

assessmentempowermentmedical studentspeer learningself-regulated learningundergraduate

Identifiers

PMID34021539
PMCPMC8317042
OpenAlexW3162915092

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.