Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39789498›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Evaluating the impact of faculty development programs at the workplace by using reflective critique writing technique.

Sarah Amin, Shabana Ali Muhammad, Rahila Yasmeen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sarah AminMedical Education Department, NUST school of health sciences (NSHS), Islamabad, Pakistan. sarahadnanmalik@gmail.com.
Shabana Ali MuhammadProf & HOD Anatomy, Deputy Deen RARE, Islamic International Medical College, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Rahila YasmeenDean RARE/ORIC, Islamic International Medical College, RIPHAH university, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe professional development of faculty members is essential for improving the quality of education. Faculty development programs play a very vital role in continued professional development of faculty. Reflective Critique writing is an important tool for evaluation of faculty development programs, as it provides opportunities for self-reflection, self-critique and self-awareness. The experience of Reflective Critique writing, needs to be explored in order to encourage the faculty to engage in this practice and pursue their personal & professional growth. Aim of study is to determine the effectiveness of Reflective Critique writing in improving the teaching skills of faculty members after a formal faculty development program & to explore their experience using reflective critique technique to improve their professional & personal life.

methodIt was a mixed method study and design used was Explanatory Sequential Design. Quantitative part is Quasi experimental studies and Qualitative part is Exploratory. Purposive sampling technique was used for Quantitative part (27 faculty members) & Convenience sampling technique (10 faculty members) for Qualitative part of the studies. Case based learning facilitation skills workshop was conducted as a part of faculty development program in which participants were also trained on writing Reflective Critique texts on the "what, so what & now what" model. Participants also went through pre & posttest of the workshop & wrote their first Reflective Critique text. First evaluation for seeing improvement in teaching skills, learning transfer & behavior changes with Reflective Critique writing was carried out after 3 months at workplace (round 1) & second evaluation on the same pattern was carried out after 6 months of workshop at workplace (round 2). Participants wrote 3 Reflective Critique texts in total. At the end of the study, participants experience of Reflective Critique writing was explored in depth by semi-structured interviews of 10 faculty members.

resultsResults included the grading of reflective capacity of participants on REFLECT rubric & comparison of pre & posttest results. REFLECT rubric grading showed that in 3rd Reflective Critique writing almost 80% of the participants became critical reflectors, improving from an initial 60% progress in first writing, showing the effectiveness of the training program & increased effectiveness of teaching skills, learning transfer & behavior change at workplace. Evaluation was taken up to level 3 of the Kirkpatrick model. Results of pre & posttest showed marked improvement in results with a significant p-value indicating the success of intervention. Hence the data analysis showed the improved teaching skills, enhanced learning transfer at workplace with a positive behavior change which clearly indicated the effectiveness of Reflective Critique in improving the teaching skills of the participants & behavior change at workplace as well as their personal & professional development. Participants experience of Reflective Critique writing was explored further in the qualitative part of the studies and results showed multiple themes including ongoing teaching skills, increased higher order thinking and making sense of experience. Participants labelled Reflective Critique as: The Game Changer.

conclusionReflective Critique writing enabled the participants to get a deeper critical evaluation of the faculty development program, which in return enhanced their overall performance at workplace.

Indexed as

Faculty, MedicalStaff DevelopmentWorkplaceWritingAdultFemaleHumansMaleProgram EvaluationTeachingEvaluationFaculty developmentReflective critique

Identifiers

PMID39789498
PMCPMC11721282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.