ArticleBMC medical education2023
Measuring antenatal counseling skill with a milestone-based assessment tool: a validation study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntenatal counseling for parents in the setting of expected preterm delivery is an important component of pediatric training. However, healthcare professionals receive a variable amount and quality of formal training. This study evaluated and discussed validity of a practical tool to assess antenatal counseling skills and provide evaluative feedback: the Antenatal Counseling Milestones Scale (ACoMS).
methodsExperts in antenatal counseling developed an anchored milestone-based tool to evaluate observable skills. Study participants with a range of antenatal counseling skills were recruited to participate in simulation of counseling sessions in person or via video with standardized patient actors presenting with preterm labor at 23 weeks' gestation. Two faculty observers scored each session independently using the ACoMS. Participants completed an ACoMS self-assessment, demographic, and feedback survey. Validity was measured with weighted kappas for inter-rater agreement, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests for milestone levels between degrees of expertise in counseling, and cronbach's alpha for item consistency.
resultsForty-two participants completed observed counseling sessions. Of the 17 items included in the tool, 15 items were statistically significant with scores scaling with level of training. A majority of elements had fair-moderate agreement between raters, and there was high internal consistency amongst all items.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that the internal structure of the ACoMS rubric has greater than fair inter-rater reliability and high internal consistency amongst items. Content validity is supported by the scale's ability to discern level of training. Application of the ACoMS to clinical encounters is needed to determine utility in clinical practice.
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.