Observational studyJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2024
Inter-rater reliability and content validity of the measurement tool for portfolio assessments used in the Introduction to Clinical Medicine course at Ewha Womans University College of Medicine: a methodological study.
Observational study in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThis study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of a measurement tool for portfolio assessments in medical education. Specifically, it investigated scoring consistency among raters and assessment criteria appropriateness according to an expert panel.
methodsA cross-sectional observational study was conducted from September to December 2018 for the Introduction to Clinical Medicine course at the Ewha Womans University College of Medicine. Data were collected for 5 randomly selected portfolios scored by a gold-standard rater and 6 trained raters. An expert panel assessed the validity of 12 assessment items using the content validity index (CVI). Statistical analysis included Pearson correlation coefficients for rater alignment, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-rater reliability, and the CVI for item-level validity.
resultsRater 1 had the highest Pearson correlation (0.8916) with the gold-standard rater, while Rater 5 had the lowest (0.4203). The ICC for all raters was 0.3821, improving to 0.4415 after excluding Raters 1 and 5, indicating a 15.6% reliability increase. All assessment items met the CVI threshold of ≥0.75, with some achieving a perfect score (CVI=1.0). However, items like "sources" and "level and degree of performance" showed lower validity (CVI=0.72).
conclusionThe present measurement tool for portfolio assessments demonstrated moderate reliability and strong validity, supporting its use as a credible tool. For a more reliable portfolio assessment, more faculty training is needed.
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.