ReviewBMC medical education2022
Student evaluations of teaching and the development of a comprehensive measure of teaching effectiveness for medical schools.
Review in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 84 citations in OpenAlex.
- Training of trainers on medical education reforms: a prospective multicenter French survey among intensivists.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Article
- Transforming the Face of Medical Education: A 5-year Experience Enhancing an Anatomy Curriculum With the Principles of Facial Transplantation.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- A Comparison of Medical Student and Resident Assessments of Internal Medicine Faculty.Journal of graduate medical education · 2026Article
- Building Faculty Performance Evaluation from the Ground-Up: Designing Tools and Gauging Acceptance.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Teaching Effectiveness of Interactive Virtual Platform Based on Artificial Intelligence for Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Training.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Interactive behavior recognition and feedback optimization strategy for medical teaching based on attention mechanism.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Matric or Mirror? Exploring Cognitive and Institutional Drivers of Student Course Evaluations: A Mixed-Methods Study in Medical Education.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Residency trainees' perceptions and attitudes towards faculty evaluation: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Medical Student Evaluations of Medical Faculty: Characteristics of Highly and Lower-Rated Teachers.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Neurology Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Finding the Needle in the Haystack: Can Natural Language Processing of Students' Evaluations of Teachers Identify Teaching Concerns?Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Medical Students' Peer Evaluation and Teaching Staff Evaluation of Community Health Projects: Perceptions and Experiences.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Use of evidence-based health professions education: Attitudes and practices of academic leaders.PloS one · 2025Article
- Design of performance evaluation method for higher education reform based on adaptive fuzzy algorithm.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- Anonymous versus Open Evaluative Feedback in US Academic Medical Institutions: Pros and Cons.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- A Faculty Growth Perspective on Peer Review of Teaching: An Institution-Wide, Customizable Approach to Peer Review.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2024Article
- Mapping the learning styles of medical students in Brazil.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Teaching on the Fly: A Needs Assessment for an Ambulatory Resident-as-Teacher Workshop.PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaluation of courses and faculty is of vital importance in all higher education institutions including medical schools. Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) commonly take the form of completion of anonymous questionnaires and even though they were originally developed to evaluate courses and programmes, throughout the years they have also been used to measure teaching effectiveness and subsequently to guide important decisions related to the faculty's career progression. Nevertheless, certain factors and biases may influence SET rates and may not measure teaching effectiveness objectively. Although the literature on course and faculty evaluations is well-researched in general higher education, there are concerns with regards to the use of the same tools for evaluation of courses and teachers in medical programmes. Specifically, the SETs in general higher education cannot be directly applied to the structure of courses and delivery of curriculum in medical schools. This review provides an overview of how SETs can be improved at the levels of instrumentation, administration and interpretation. In addition, the paper supports that through the collection and triangulation of data from multiple sources, including students, peers, program administrators and self-awareness via the use of different methods such as peer reviews, focus groups and self-evaluations, it will be possible to develop a comprehensive evaluation system that will present an effective measure of teaching effectiveness, will support the professional development of medical teachers and will improve the quality of teaching in medical education.
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.