ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2024
Development of peer assessment rubrics in simulation-based learning for advanced cardiac life support skills among medical students.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2024. 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.
- Unveiling barriers of introverts to collaborative learning: an exploratory mixed-methods study across medical student personalities.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the dependability of peer assessment in project-based learning for pre-clinical students: a generalizability theory approach.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeer assessment can enhance understanding of the simulation-based learning (SBL) process and promote feedback, though research on its rubrics remains limited. This study assesses the validity and reliability of a peer assessment rubric and determines the appropriate number of items and raters needed for a reliable assessment in the advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) context.
methodsNinety-five third-year medical students participated in the ACLS course and were assessed by two teachers (190 ratings) and three peers (285 ratings). Students rotated roles and were assessed once as a team leader on a ten-item rubric in three domains: electrocardiogram and ACLS skills, management and mechanisms, and affective domains. Messick's validity framework guided the collection of validity evidence.
resultsFive sources of validity evidence were collected: (1) content: expert reviews and alpha, beta, and pilot tests for iterative content validation; (2) response process: achieved acceptable peer interrater reliability (intraclass correlation = 0.78, p = 0.001) and a Cronbach's alpha of 0.83; (3) internal structure: demonstrated reliability through generalizability theory, where one peer rater with ten items achieved sufficient reliability (Phi-coefficient = 0.76), and two raters enhanced reliability (Phi-coefficient = 0.85); construct validity was supported by confirmatory factor analysis. (4) Relations to other variables: Peer and teacher ratings were similar. However, peers rated higher in scenario management; further generalizability theory analysis indicated comparable reliability with the same number of teachers. (5) Consequences: Over 80% of students positively perceived peer assessment on a 5-point Likert scale survey.
conclusionThis study confirms the validity and reliability of ACLS SBL rubrics while utilizing peers as raters. Rubrics can exhibit clear performance criteria, ensure uniform grading, provide targeted feedback, and promote peer assessment skills.
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.