ArticleCanadian medical education journal2021
Examining the accuracy of residents' self-assessments and faculty assessment behaviours in anesthesiology.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of endotracheal tube dislodgement during transoral oropharyngolaryngeal surgery: a multicenter cross-sectional survey study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Providing Delayed, In-Person Collected Feedback From Residents to Teaching Faculty: Lessons Learned.Journal of graduate medical education · 2024Article
- Differences between resident self-assessments and faculty- assessments on Anesthesiology Milestones and associated factors: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Only as Strong as the Weakest Link: Resident Perspectives on Entrustable Professional Activities and Their Impact on Learning.Journal of graduate medical education · 2023Article
- Exploring How Gender and Race Are Related to the Alignment of Anesthesiology Residents' Self-Assessments and Faculty Evaluation of Clinical Competencies.The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResidents' accurate self-assessment and clinical judgment are essential for optimizing their clinical skills development. Evidence from the medical literature suggests that residents generally do poorly at self-assessing their performance, often due to factors relating to learners' personal backgrounds, cultures, the specific contexts of the learning environment and rater bias or inaccuracies. We evaluated the accuracy of anesthesiology residents' self-assessed Global Entrustment scores and determined whether differences between faculty and resident scores varied by resident seniority, faculty leniency, and/or year of assessment.
methodsWe employed variance components modeling techniques and analyzed 329 pairs of faculty and self-assessed entrustment scores among 43 faculty assessors and 15 residents. Using faculty scores as the gold standard, we compared faculty scores with residents' scores (x
resultsThe results indicate that residents were respectively over- and under-confident in 10.9% and 54.4% of the assessments but more consistent in their individual self-assessments (
conclusionsThe majority of residents' self-assessments were inaccurate. Our findings may help identify the sources of such inaccuracies.
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.