ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022
Concordance of Narrative Comments with Supervision Ratings Provided During Entrustable Professional Activity Assessments.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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.
- Assessing the Quality of Narrative Feedback in Entrustable Professional Activities Using the EFeCT Feedback Scoring Tool.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- Student Perceptions of Narrative Feedback in Entrustable Professional Activities.The clinical teacher · 2025Article
- How Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors Are Using Entrustable Professional Activities: A National Survey Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- "Doing well": Intraoperative entrustable professional activity assessments provided limited technical feedback.Surgery open science · 2024Article
- Consequence in Competency-Based Education: Individualize, but Do Not Compromise.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUse of EPA-based entrustment-supervision ratings to determine a learner's readiness to assume patient care responsibilities is expanding.
objectiveIn this study, we investigate the correlation between narrative comments and supervision ratings assigned during ad hoc assessments of medical students' performance of EPA tasks.
designData from assessments completed for students enrolled in the clerkship phase over 2 academic years were used to extract a stratified random sample of 100 narrative comments for review by an expert panel.
participantsA review panel, comprised of faculty with specific expertise related to their roles within the EPA program, provided a "gold standard" supervision rating using the comments provided by the original assessor. MAIN MEASURES: Interrater reliability (IRR) between members of review panel and correlation coefficients (CC) between expert ratings and supervision ratings from original assessors. KEY
resultsIRR among members of the expert panel ranged from .536 for comments associated with focused history taking to .833 for complete physical exam. CC (Kendall's correlation coefficient W) between panel members' assignment of supervision ratings and the ratings provided by the original assessors for history taking, physical examination, and oral presentation comments were .668, .697, and .735 respectively. The supervision ratings of the expert panel had the highest degree of correlation with ratings provided during assessments done by master assessors, faculty trained to assess students across clinical contexts. Correlation between supervision ratings provided with the narrative comments at the time of observation and supervision ratings assigned by the expert panel differed by clinical discipline, perhaps reflecting the value placed on, and perhaps the comfort level with, assessment of the task in a given specialty.
conclusionsTo realize the full educational and catalytic effect of EPA assessments, assessors must apply established performance expectations and provide high-quality narrative comments aligned with the criteria.
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.