ArticleBMC medical education2025
Empowering medical students with AI writing co-pilots: design and validation of AI self-assessment toolkit.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of generative artificial intelligence on clinical skills and knowledge acquisition in medical undergraduates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- AI-Generated Versus Human Supervisor Feedback on Medical Students' Clinical Clerkship Logs: Cross-Sectional Convergent Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Deciphering AI-chatbots utilization in clinical practice, research and education among Chinese medical students in generative AI era: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- AI-assisted academic writing in medical postgraduate education: a cross-sectional study of L2 challenges, affective barriers, and instructional implications.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A scoping review of the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in health profession education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A research roadmap for AI opportunities in student assessment for medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Review
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
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
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.