ArticleAmerican journal of pharmaceutical education2023
Automated Analysis of Preceptor Comments: A Pilot Study Using Sentiment Analysis to Identify Potential Student Issues in Experiential Education.
Article in American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reforming hospital management education with the P-MASE pedagogy: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Exploring the use of ChatGPT to analyze student course evaluation comments.BMC medical education · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this paper is to describe a sentiment analysis program that aids in identifying pharmacy students at risk for progression issues by automatically scoring preceptor comments as positive or negative.
methodsAn R-based program to analyze advanced pharmacy practice experiences and introductory pharmacy practice experiences midpoint evaluation of preceptor comments was piloted in phase 1 by comparing the sentiment analysis algorithm results to human coding. The algorithm was refined in phase 2. In phase 3, the validation phase, the final sentiment analysis algorithm analyzed all midpoint student evaluations (n = 1560). Sentiment scores were generated for each preceptor comment, and correlations were performed between sentiment scores and the quantitative scoring provided on the assessment.
resultsIn phase 1, agreement between faculty coders and sentiment analysis was 96%, and in phase 2, agreement between the final codes and sentiment analysis was 92.4% once keywords were added to the sentiment dictionary. In phase 3, a total of 3919 comments from 1560 evaluations were analyzed, and overall, the sentiment analysis results aligned with the quantitative data.
conclusionThis sentiment analysis algorithm was accurate in capturing positive and negative comments corresponding to pharmacy student performance. Given the accuracy of this preliminary validation for flagging preceptor comments, there are numerous implications when considering the use of sentiment analysis in pharmacy education. Using a sentiment analysis program minimizes the number of qualitative preceptor comments needing review by experiential faculty, as this program can aid in identifying students at risk of progression issues.
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.