ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Evaluating Feedback Comments in Entrustable Professional Activities: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Generated Versus Human Supervisor Feedback on Medical Students' Clinical Clerkship Logs: Cross-Sectional Convergent Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Beyond the Numbers: Exploring Tensions Between Formal Entrustment and Trainee Readiness in Internship Training - A Mixed-Methods Study.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Evaluating faculty and trainee perceptions on entrustable professional activities in dental postgraduate training: a cross-sectional survey.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- A mixed-methods study on the course of professional identity formation in undergraduate medical students.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCompetency-based medical education (CBME) has transformed postgraduate medical training, prioritizing competency acquisition over traditional time-based curricula. Integral to CBME are Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs), that aim to provide high-quality feedback for trainee development. Despite its importance, the quality of feedback within EPAs remains underexplored.
methodsWe employed a cross-sectional study to explore feedback quality within EPAs, and to examine factors influencing length of written comments and their relationship to quality. We collected and analyzed 1163 written feedback comments using the Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) score. The QuAL aims to evaluate written feedback from low-stakes workplace assessments, based on 3 quality criteria (evidence, suggestion, connection). Afterwards, we performed correlation and regression analyses to examine factors influencing feedback length and quality.
resultsEPAs facilitated high-quality written feedback, with a significant proportion of comments meeting quality criteria. Task-oriented and actionable feedback was prevalent, enhancing value of low-stakes workplace assessments. From the statistical analyses, the type of assessment tool significantly influenced feedback length and quality, implicating that direct and video observations can yield superior feedback in comparison to case-based discussions. However, no correlation between entrustment scores and feedback quality was found, suggesting potential discrepancies between the feedback and the score on the entrustability scale.
conclusionThis study indicates the role of the EPAs to foster high-quality feedback within CBME. It also highlights the multifaceted feedback dynamics, suggesting the influence of factors such as feedback length and assessment tool on feedback quality. Future research should further explore contextual factors for enhancing medical education practices.
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.