ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2025
"But Why?": Explanatory Feedback Is a Reliable Marker of High-Quality Narrative Assessment of Surgical Performance.
Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2025. 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.
- AI-Generated Versus Human Supervisor Feedback on Medical Students' Clinical Clerkship Logs: Cross-Sectional Convergent Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Tracking Clinical Competency Growth: A Longitudinal Study of Medical Students in a Multidisciplinary Emergency Department Internship Program.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study examines the quality of short narrative comments collected using an online workplace-based assessment (WBA) tool.
methodThe quality of comments collected by a WBA tool at the UPMC Ophthalmology Residency Training Program was evaluated between July 2017-June 2020. A randomized rating exercise involving 10 meta-raters from 6 institutions was performed to evaluate the value of narratives from deidentified WBAs. The tool captured a single-item entrustment competency question with brief comments. Comments were evaluated using a Quality of Assessment of Learning (QuAL) score (range, 0-5; ≥3 considered high quality) and on whether the assessor provided a feedback rationale.
resultsA total of 838 unique WBAs were collected from 15 attending evaluators. Comments were brief (median [interquartile range] length, 11 [7-17] words), yet 514 (61.3%) were rated as high quality (QuAL score ≥3). Of all 838 comments, 98 (11.7%) included a specific reason the evidence or suggestion was provided to the learner. Of these 98 comments, 94 (95.9%) met the high-quality feedback threshold. A higher QuAL score was associated with a higher postgraduate year (PGY) level (estimate [SE], 1.603 [0.428], P < .001 for PGY2 [reference]; 1.003 [0.389], P = .01 for PGY3; 1.079 [0.360], P = .003 for PGY4), suggesting more advanced learners receive higher-quality narrative comments. A correlation was found between a higher entrustment rating and a lower QuAL score (estimate [SE], -0.199 [0.053], P < .001). When the PGY level was controlled for, this association got stronger (estimate [SE], -0.310 [0.057], P < .001).
conclusionsAnalysis of WBA comments from attending physicians evaluated using the QuAL score demonstrated that most comments were high quality despite their brevity. Residents in later training years and with lower entrustment ratings received higher-quality comments. High-quality narrative assessments were longer and addressed rationale as part of the comment.
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.