ArticleMedical education online2025
Reliability and validity of simulation-based Electrocardiogram assessment rubrics for cardiac life support skills among medical students using generalizability theory.
Article in Medical education online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An exploratory study on the use of the self-directed learning, self-video recording, peer-to-peer review, and Direct feedback model to enhance clinical skills among medical students in Southern Thailand.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Simulation-based learning (SBL) is effective for EKG interpretation training in the advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) context, enhancing motivation, confidence, and learning outcomes. However, research on the psychometrics of assessment rubrics for ACLS skills among pre-clinical students is limited. This study investigates the validity and reliability of assessment rubrics for ACLS skills, including EKG interpretation, scenario and pharmacological management, and teamwork. An SBL course that integrates basic EKG interpretation into ACLS Stations was conducted at Phramongkutklao College of Medicine, utilizing high-fidelity mannequins to simulate realistic scenarios, enrolling 96 medical students. The course consisted of five independent stations, and each student was assessed once by two raters using ten-item assessment rubrics. The rubrics included three domains: (1) EKG and ACLS algorithm skills, (2) management and mechanisms of action, and (3) affective domains. Validity evidence on the content was gathered, and construct validity was confirmed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Inter-rater and internal consistency reliability were calculated. Generalizability theory was utilized to analyse the data. Three expert reviews yielded an item-objective congruence index of 0.67-1.00, with iterative validation through alpha and beta tests. The CFA demonstrated a good fit, but two questions with loading factors below 0.30 were removed, resulting in an eight-item assessment form. An inter-rater correlation of 0.70 (p < 0.001) and a Cronbach's alpha of 0.76 was demonstrated. To achieve a Phi-coefficient ≥0.80, three raters and at least 10 items are required in a p×i×r crossed design. With eight items, r:(p×i) nested design reliability was 0.69, 0.79, and 0.83 for one, two, and three raters, respectively. While a single rater with 10 items achieved a Phi-coefficient of 0.74. The rubrics for assessing ACLS skills among pre-clinical students demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability. A condensed eight-item rubric with acceptable reliability is proposed as a practical tool for optimizing assessment in future evaluations relevant to the pre-clinical context.
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.