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.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Entrustable professional activities in medical education: strategies and results - a systematic review.Medical education online · 2026Pooled it
- Dependability of Entrustable Professional Activity Portfolios in Otorhinolaryngology Residency: Nationwide Generalizability and Decision Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Education Research: Quality of Narrative Feedback Generated by a Large Language Model Compared With Expert Faculty for Case-Based Learning in Neurology Education.Neurology. Education · 2026Article
- Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Model for Automated Feedback Quality Assessment in Chinese Anesthesiology Residency Training.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- A scoping review of feedback features during clinical education for anaesthesia trainees.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Review
- Entrustable professional activity use in emergency medicine: A scoping review.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Best Practices in Formative Feedback in Resident Evaluations: A Narrative Review.Journal of surgical education · 2025Review
- Improving the quality and quantity of narrative feedback to anesthesiology residents: a program evaluation study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024Article
- Equity, diversion, and inclusion in medical school teaching.Canadian medical education journal · 2023Article
- Evaluating Feedback Comments in Entrustable Professional Activities: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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
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
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.