ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2021
Validity Evidence for the Emergency Medicine Standardized Letter of Evaluation.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 30-year History of the Emergency Medicine Standardized Letter of Evaluation.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Inequities in the National Clinical Assessment Tool for Medical Students in the Emergency Department.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Improving the Transition From Medical School to Residency in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.Journal of graduate medical education · 2025Article
- Prevalence and characteristics of group standardized letters of evaluation in emergency medicine: A cross-sectional observational study.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Automated abstraction of information from standard letters of evaluation: A resource for file review and research.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Measuring and Predicting Faculty Consensus Rankings of Standardized Letters of Evaluation.Journal of graduate medical education · 2024Article
- Gender differences in cardiothoracic surgery letters of recommendation.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023Article
- To the Editor: Addressing Limitations of a Standardized Letter of Recommendation.Journal of graduate medical education · 2023Article
- To the Editor: For Equity in Assessment: A Comment on Bias in the Emergency Medicine Standardized Letter of Evaluation.Journal of graduate medical education · 2023Article
- A Call to Action for Standardizing Letters of Recommendation.Journal of graduate medical education · 2022Article
- An Evaluation of Non-Uniform Grade Distribution with the Emergency Medicine Off-Service Standardized Letters of Evaluation.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2022Article
- To the Editor: Where Is Equity in the SLOE?Journal of graduate medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) is the application component that program directors value most when evaluating candidates to interview and rank for emergency medicine (EM) residency. Given its successful implementation, other specialties, including otolaryngology, dermatology, and orthopedics, have adopted similar SLOEs of their own, and more specialties are considering creating one. Unfortunately, for such a significant assessment tool, no study to date has comprehensively examined the validity evidence for the EM SLOE.
objectiveWe summarized the published evidence for validity for the EM SLOE using Messick's framework for validity evidence.
methodsA scoping review of the validity evidence of the EM SLOE was performed in 2020. A scoping review was chosen to identify gaps and future directions, and because the heterogeneity of the literature makes a systematic review difficult. Included articles were assigned to an aspect of Messick's framework and determined to provide evidence for or against validity.
resultsThere have been 22 articles published relating to validity evidence for the EM SLOE. There is evidence for content validity; however, there is a lack of evidence for internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences. Additionally, the literature regarding response process demonstrates evidence against validity.
conclusionsOverall, there is little published evidence in support of validity for the EM SLOE. Stakeholders need to consider changing the ranking system, improving standardization of clerkships, and further studying relation to other variables to improve validity. This will be important across GME as more specialties adopt a standardized letter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.