ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Exploration of validity evidence for core residency entrustable professional activities in Chinese pediatric residency.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Entrustable professional activities in medical education: strategies and results - a systematic review.Medical education online · 2026Pooled it
- Entrustable professional activities for pediatric and subspecialties residency training in China.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study seeks to explore validity and reliability evidence for core residency entrustable professional activities (CR-EPAs) that were developed by Peking University First Hospital (PKUFH) in 2020. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted in PKUFH. Trainers (raters) assessed pediatric residents on CR-EPAs over 1 academic year, bi-annually. Critical components within a validity evidence framework were examined: response process (rater perceptions), the internal structure (reliability and contributions of different variance sources), and consequences (potential use of a cutoff score). Results: In total, 37 residents were enrolled, and 111 and 99 trainers' ratings were collected in Fall 2020 and Spring 2021, respectively. For rater perceptions, all the raters considered CR-EPAs highly operational and convenient. In all ratings, individual EPAs correlate with total EPA moderately, with Spearman correlation coefficients spanning from 0.805 to 0.919. EPA 2 (select and interpret the auxiliary examinations), EPA 5 (prepare and complete medical documents), EPA 6 (provide an oral presentation of a case or a clinical encounter), and EPA 7 (identify and manage the general clinical conditions) were EPAs correlated with other EPAs significantly. The results of the generalizability theory indicated that the variability due to residents is the highest (nearly 78.5%), leading to a large size of the reliability estimates. The matching results indicate that the lowest error locates at 5.933. Conclusion: The rating showed good validity and reliability. The ratings were reliable based on G-theory. CR-EPAs have a magnificent internal structure and have promising consequences. Our results indicate that CR-EPAs are a robust assessment tool in workplace-based training in a carefully designed setting.
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.