ArticleMedical education online2023
Perceptions and attitudes of medical students towards student evaluation of teaching: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Medical education online, 2023. 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.
- Qualities of an effective teacher: a cross-cultural study on the perspectives of students and faculty in two medical programs in Cyprus and Sweden.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Residency trainees' perceptions and attitudes towards faculty evaluation: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Challenges in student assessment in medical and health sciences education in Northern Iraq.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Bias in student evaluations of teaching in undergraduate medical education: a qualitative study from a medical school in Northern China.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Assessing the prevalence of generalized anxiety disorder in a multicultural medical education setting in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFaculty evaluation surveys in the frame of student evaluation of teaching (SETs) are a widely utilized tool to assess faculty teaching. Although SETs are used regularly to evaluate teaching effectiveness, their sole use for making administrative decisions and as an indicator of teaching quality has been controversial.
methodsA survey containing 22 items assessing demographics, perception, and factors for evaluating faculty was distributed to medical students at our institute. Statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel and R Software utilizing regression analysis and ANOVA test.
resultsThe survey received 374 responses consisting of 191 (51.1%) male students and 183 (48.9%) female students. In all, 178 (47.5%) students considered the optimal time for providing faculty evaluation to be after the release of the exam results, compared to 127 (33.9%) students, who chose the after the exam but before the release of exam results option. When asked what happens whenever the tutor is aware about the SETs data, 273 (72.9%) and 254 (67.9%) students believed that it would influence the difficulty of the exam and grading/curving of the exam results, respectively. Better teaching skills (93%, 348), being responsive and open to student feedback and suggestions (84.7%, 317), being committed to class time and schedule (80.1%, 300), and an easier exam (68.6%, 257) were considered important factors to acquire a positive evaluation by a considerable proportion of students. Fewer lectures (
conclusionsInstitutions ought to continue exploring areas of improvement in the faculty evaluation process while raising awareness among students about the importance and administrative implications of their feedback.
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.