Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37501810›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2023

Effective Feedback Strategy for Formative Assessment in an Integrated Medical Neuroscience Course.

Richard L Goodwin, Thomas I Nathaniel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Richard L GoodwinUniversity of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville, 29605 Greenville, SC USA.
Thomas I NathanielUniversity of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville, 29605 Greenville, SC USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0954-5050

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Despite the different benefits of formative assessments in an integrated medical curriculum, the effective strategies to provide feedback to medical students to benefit from the different merits of formative assessment are not fully understood. This study aims to determine the effect of different strategies of formative feedback on students' outcomes in a medical neuroscience course. Method: We compared medical students' performance in summative examinations in the academic year that formative feedback was provided using in-person discussion and compared such performances with the academic year when the feedback was provided by written rationales or a combination of written rationales and in-person discussion. We also surveyed medical students' preferences for whether written or in-person formative feedback is a better strategy to provide feedback at the end of each course. Results: ANOVA found a significant difference in summative performance scores for those scoring ≥ 70% when formative feedback was provided by providing a rationale, in-person, and a combination of both ([ Conclusion: Our results found that medical students preferred a written formative feedback approach, which was associated with better student performance on the summative examination. This study reveals the importance of developing effective strategies to provide formative feedback to medical students for medical students to fully benefit from the merits of formative assessment in an integrated medical school curriculum.

Indexed as

Formative assessmentIn-personSummative assessmentWritten rationale

Identifiers

PMID37501810
PMCPMC10368590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.