ArticleInternational journal of medical education2023
An innovative assessment tool for evaluating narrative feedback quality among Medicine and Biomedical Sciences students.
Article in International journal of 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To develop a reliable instrument to objectively assess feedback quality, to use it for assessment of the quality of students' narrative feedback and to be used as a self-assessment instrument for students in their learning process. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, 635 feedback narratives, provided by small groups of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences undergraduate students, have been extracted from available quarterly curriculum evaluation surveys. A rubric was developed based on literature and contents of our feedback education. It consists of seven subitems and has a maximum score of 20 points (sufficient score: >10 points). Rubric reliability was evaluated using intra-class correlation. The rubric was tested by analysing the feedback narratives. To test progression, we compared rubric scores between study years with a Kruskal-Wallis analysis and Dunn's post-hoc testing with Bonferroni correction. Results: The rubric has an intra-class correlation of 0.894. First year students had a mean rubric score of 11.5 points (SD 3.6), second year students 12.4 (SD 3.4) and third year students 13.1 (SD 3.6). Kruskal-Wallis testing showed significant differences in feedback quality between study years (χ Conclusions: The developed rubric is a reliable instrument to assess narrative feedback quality. Students were able to provide feedback of sufficient quality and quality improved across study years. The instrument will allow students to assess themselves and learn where there is still room for improvement.
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.