Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38226296›Full record

ArticleCanadian medical education journal2023

The Quality of Assessment for Learning score for evaluating written feedback in anesthesiology postgraduate medical education: a generalizability and decision study.

Eugene K Choo, Rob Woods, Mary Ellen Walker, Jennifer M O'Brien, Teresa M Chan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Equity, diversion, and inclusion in medical school teaching.Canadian medical education journal · 2023
    Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Eugene K ChooDepartment of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Rob WoodsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Mary Ellen WalkerDepartment of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Jennifer M O'BrienDepartment of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Teresa M ChanDepartment of Medicine (Division of Emergency Medicine; Division of Education & Innovation), Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University and Office of Continuing Professional Development & McMaster Education Research, Innovation, and Theory (MERIT) Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Competency based residency programs depend on high quality feedback from the assessment of entrustable professional activities (EPA). The Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) score is a tool developed to rate the quality of narrative comments in workplace-based assessments; it has validity evidence for scoring the quality of narrative feedback provided to emergency medicine residents, but it is unknown whether the QuAL score is reliable in the assessment of narrative feedback in other postgraduate programs. Methods: Fifty sets of EPA narratives from a single academic year at our competency based medical education post-graduate anesthesia program were selected by stratified sampling within defined parameters [e.g. resident gender and stage of training, assessor gender, Competency By Design training level, and word count (≥17 or <17 words)]. Two competency committee members and two medical students rated the quality of narrative feedback using a utility score and QuAL score. We used Kendall's tau-b co-efficient to compare the perceived utility of the written feedback to the quality assessed with the QuAL score. The authors used generalizability and decision studies to estimate the reliability and generalizability coefficients. Results: Both the faculty's utility scores and QuAL scores (r = 0.646, Conclusions: The QuAL score is correlated with faculty- and trainee-rated utility of anesthesia EPA feedback. Both faculty and trainees can reliability apply the QuAL score to anesthesia EPA narrative feedback. This tool has the potential to be used for faculty development and program evaluation in Competency Based Medical Education. Other programs could consider replicating our study in their specialty.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyEducation, MedicalClinical CompetenceFeedbackHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID38226296
PMCPMC10787859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.