ArticleBMC medical education2025
Evaluating the dependability of peer assessment in project-based learning for pre-clinical students: a generalizability theory approach.
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 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.
- Postgraduate nursing students' experiences in a project-based learning model: a qualitative focus group study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Unveiling barriers of introverts to collaborative learning: an exploratory mixed-methods study across medical student personalities.BMC psychology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeer assessment enables students to evaluate peers, deepening their understanding of course objectives and boosting engagement. However, its dependability, especially in summative contexts, is often questioned. This study examines the dependability of peer assessments, and the optimal number of items and raters needed for a reliable assessment in project-based learning (PtBL).
methodsIn a PtBL class, 95 third-year pre-clinical students, grouped into ten teams, created 5-min videos on cardiovascular lifestyle modifications for the community, followed by a 5-min presentation on the video's information and relevance to the citizen. Over three weeks, each group, guided by three advisors, refined their video. During presentations, peers (from nine non-presenting groups) and ten teachers (five Doctor of Medicines (MDs) and five health professors) evaluated the video presentation using a 6-item rubric covering three domains: interdisciplinary data integration, interpersonal skills, and video quality/effectiveness. Messick's validity framework was utilized to guide the collection of validity evidence.
resultsFive sources of validity evidence were collected: 1) Content: Three professors confirmed the rubric's content validity. 2) Response process: Scores from students, MDs, and health professors are similar at 54.00 ± 4.03, 53.24 ± 4.18, and 54.16 ± 4.16, respectively (F = 0.75, p = 0.472). 3) Internal structure: A fully crossed design (p × i × r) generalizability theory analysis showed that achieving a Phi-coefficient ≥ 0.70 on a six-item rubric requires 27 students (Phi-coefficient = 0.70), 7 MDs (Phi-coefficient = 0.70), or 5 health professors (Phi-coefficient = 0.73). A nested design (r:(p × i)) demonstrated superior reliability, requiring only 9 students, 5 MDs, and 4 health professors for acceptable reliability. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good model fit. 4) Relations to other variables: On average, peer and teacher ratings scored 54.00 ± 2.22 and 53.70 ± 2.78, respectively, with an inter-rater reliability of r = 0.73 (p = 0.016). 5) Consequences: Most groups found peer assessment beneficial for gaining insightful feedback (8/10), enhancing engagement (7/10), refining their work (5/10), and learning structured feedback (3/10), though there were concerns about potential bias (5/10).
conclusionDependability evidence for peer assessment in the PtBL context was successfully gathered. In PtBL, students contribute to grading due to their diverse expertise. While peer assessment cannot replace teacher evaluations, it enhances engagement, enriches the learning environment, and improves assessment quality through valuable feedback.
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.