Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39891148›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Empowering medical students with AI writing co-pilots: design and validation of AI self-assessment toolkit.

Laleh Khojasteh, Reza Kafipour, Farhad Pakdel, Jayakaran Mukundan

Abstract readValidation Study
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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

4 authors.

Laleh KhojastehDepartment of English Language, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6393-2759
Reza KafipourDepartment of English Language, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. rezakafipour@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9906-7242
Farhad PakdelDepartment of English Language, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. ffpakdel@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0022-8307
Jayakaran MukundanSchool of Education, Taylors University, Lakeside Campus, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesAssessing and improving academic writing skills is a crucial component of higher education. To support students in this endeavor, a comprehensive self-assessment toolkit was developed to provide personalized feedback and guide their writing improvement. The current study aimed to rigorously evaluate the validity and reliability of this academic writing self-assessment toolkit.

methodsThe development and validation of the academic writing self-assessment toolkit involved several key steps. First, a thorough review of the literature was conducted to identify the essential criteria for authentic assessment. Next, an analysis of medical students' reflection papers was undertaken to gain insights into their experiences using AI-powered tools for writing feedback. Based on these initial steps, a preliminary version of the self-assessment toolkit was devised. An expert focus group discussion was then convened to refine the questions and content of the toolkit. To assess content validity, the toolkit was evaluated by a panel of 22 medical student participants. They were asked to review each item and provide feedback on the relevance and comprehensiveness of the toolkit for evaluating academic writing skills. Face validity was also examined, with the students assessing the clarity, wording, and appropriateness of the toolkit items.

resultsThe content validity evaluation revealed that 95% of the toolkit items were rated as highly relevant, and 88% were deemed comprehensive in assessing key aspects of academic writing. Minor wording changes were suggested by the students to enhance clarity and interpretability. The face validity assessment found that 92% of the items were rated as unambiguous, with 90% considered appropriate and relevant for self-assessment. Feedback from the students led to the refinement of a few items to improve their clarity in the context of the Persian language. The robust reliability testing demonstrated the consistency and stability of the academic writing self-assessment toolkit in measuring students' writing skills over time.

conclusionThe comprehensive evaluation process has established the academic writing self-assessment toolkit as a robust and credible instrument for supporting students' writing improvement. The toolkit's strong psychometric properties and user-centered design make it a valuable resource for enhancing academic writing skills in higher education.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateEmpowermentSelf-AssessmentStudents, MedicalWritingEducational MeasurementFocus GroupsHumansPilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsAI writingAuthentic assessmentChatGPTMedical StudentsSelf-assessment toolkit

Identifiers

PMID39891148
PMCPMC11786331

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.