Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34162382›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

Design and usability testing of an in-house developed performance feedback tool for medical students.

Yadira Roa Romero, Hannah Tame, Ylva Holzhausen, Mandy Petzold, Jan-Vincent Wyszynski, Harm Peters, Mohammed Alhassan-Altoaama, Monika Domanska, Martin Dittmar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. From Data to Decision: Design and Evaluation of a Patient Safety Dashboard.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Yadira Roa RomeroQuality Assurance in Education, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Hannah TameQuality Assurance in Education, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany. hannah.tame@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4039-8714
Ylva HolzhausenDieter Scheffner Center for Medical Education and Educational Research, Dean's Office of Study Affairs, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Mandy PetzoldQuality Assurance in Education, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Jan-Vincent WyszynskiQuality Assurance in Education, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Harm PetersDieter Scheffner Center for Medical Education and Educational Research, Dean's Office of Study Affairs, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Mohammed Alhassan-AltoaamaQuality Assurance in Education, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Monika DomanskaBusiness Division IT, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Martin DittmarBusiness Division IT, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft, Berlin CH-Q10-la-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeedback is essential in a self-regulated learning environment such as medical education. When feedback channels are widely spread, the need arises for a system of integrating this information in a single platform. This article reports on the design and initial testing of a feedback tool for medical students at Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, a large teaching hospital. Following a needs analysis, we designed and programmed a feedback tool in a user-centered approach. The resulting interface was evaluated prior to release with usability testing and again post release using quantitative/qualitative questionnaires.

resultsThe tool we created is a browser application for use on desktop or mobile devices. Students log in to see a dashboard of "cards" featuring summaries of assessment results, a portal for the documentation of acquired practical skills, and an overview of their progress along their course. Users see their cohort's average for each format. Learning analytics rank students' strengths by subject. The interface is characterized by colourful and simple graphics. In its initial form, the tool has been rated positively overall by students. During testing, the high task completion rate (78%) and low overall number of non-critical errors indicated good usability, while the quantitative data (system usability scoring) also indicates high ease of use. The source code for the tool is open-source and can be adapted by other medical faculties.

conclusionsThe results suggest that the implemented tool LevelUp is well-accepted by students. It therefore holds promise for improved, digitalized integrated feedback about students' learning progress. Our aim is that LevelUp will help medical students to keep track of their study progress and reflect on their skills. Further development will integrate users' recommendations for additional features as well as optimizing data flow.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalEducational MeasurementFeedbackHumansUser-Centered DesignUser-Computer InterfaceAssessment feedbackEPAsFormative and summative assessmentLearning analyticsUsability testing

Identifiers

PMID34162382
PMCPMC8220763

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.