ArticleMedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources2022
Preparing Effective Narrative Evaluations for the Medical School Performance Evaluation (MSPE).
Article in MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Be AWARE: An Anti-bias Toolkit to Limit Bias in Narrative Evaluation of Medical Trainees.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2026Article
- The Medical Student Performance Evaluation in global medical education: addressing a missing Middle Eastern perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- An Analysis of Obstetrics and Gynecology Medical Student Performance Evaluation Clerkship Narratives: Insights From the PRIME+ Framework.Journal of graduate medical education · 2025Article
- Best Practices in Formative Feedback in Resident Evaluations: A Narrative Review.Journal of surgical education · 2025Review
- Investigating the Road to Equity: A Scoping Review of Solutions to Mitigate Implicit Bias in Assessment within Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluation of bias and gender/racial concordance based on sentiment analysis of narrative evaluations of clinical clerkships using natural language processing.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Comparing Machine Learning Models and Human Raters When Ranking Medical Student Performance Evaluations.Journal of graduate medical education · 2023Article
- Raising the bar: Can an Online Module With a Validated Tool Improve Clerkship Evaluations?Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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 at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In 2016, the AAMC Medical School Performance Evaluation (MSPE) Task Force issued recommendations to standardize the MSPE but did not address the quality of the written narratives in that document. Narrative evaluations are hampered by code words, polite rhetoric, and bias to the detriment of students. To address this, the AAMC's Group on Student Affairs and Group on Educational Affairs convened an expert group to consider the state of narratives in the MSPE and develop resources to improve their quality. Methods: A series of interactive workshops was developed and presented at an AAMC webinar and national meetings. A presentation outlining challenges and possible approaches to improvement was followed with large-group discussion and/or small-group breakout activity to analyze and improve upon sample clinical comments and create summary clerkship paragraphs. The initial webinar used polling questions and free-text prompts to gather feedback for future workshops. Anonymous survey responses were collected at the end of each subsequent workshop to determine perceived effectiveness and potential utility at participants' institutions. Results: Over 680 administrators, faculty, and staff participated in the webinar or in one of four national-level workshops. Respondents agreed that the modules would be useful in faculty development and wanted to replicate their learning at their own institutions for overall better impact on the quality of MSPE narratives. Discussion: This resource addresses an important gap in the medical education literature. A variety of stakeholders affirmed that these workshops have value in training writers to improve their narrative comments for the MSPE.
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.