ArticleMedical education online2022
Do entrustment scales make a difference in the inter-rater reliability of the workplace-based assessment?
Article in Medical education online, 2022. 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.
- Subjectivity in Entrustment Decision-Making in the Clinical Workplace: Can We Retain Its Legitimacy But Avoid Bias?Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Review
- Accuracy of Entrustment-Based Assessment: Implications for Programs and Patients.Journal of graduate medical education · 2024Article
- Assessment of Entrustable Professional Activities Among Dutch Endocrine Supervisors.Journal of CME · 2024Article
- Perception and Satisfaction of Undergraduate Medical Students of the Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise Implementation in Orthopedic Outpatient Setting.Advances in medical education and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA workplace-based assessment (WBA) is used to assess learners' competencies in their workplaces. Many workplace assessment tools are available and validated to assess various constructs. The implementation of workplace-based assessment requires proper training of the staff.
objectiveThis study aimed to explore the impact of staff training on WBA practices and evaluate the inter-rater reliability of these practices while using entrustment scales, performance descriptors, and personal judgment.
designA quasi-experimental study, in which the staff members of the orthopedic department were invited to participate in a training program on the use of entrustment scales and assessment descriptors within the WBA tools. As a response to the training, subjective judgment was replaced by entrustment scales and performance descriptors in a trauma course offered by the orthopedic department. The inter-rater reliability of the WBA was evaluated using various rating scales.
resultsThe entrustment scales had higher inter-rater reliability of the assessment tools than performance descriptors and the personal judgment.
conclusionThe inter-rater reliability was highest when using entrustment scales for WBAs, which could indicate that the entrustment scales achieve good psychometric properties as regards consistency among different raters. Thus, they decrease the confounding effect of differences in assessors. They may also give a clearer image of the actual academic level of the learners.
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.