Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40169522›Full record

ArticleAcademic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry2025

A Scoping Review of Assessments in Undergraduate Medical Education: Implications for Residency Programs and Medical Schools.

Xiaomei Song, Elle Cleaves, Ellen Gluzman, Biana Kotlyar, Rachel A Russo, David C Schilling, Carol Ping Tsao, James C West

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Disparities Impacts Psychiatry Competency Assessments among Students in a Nigerian Medical School.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association
    Article
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

8 authors.

Xiaomei SongCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. xiaomei.song@case.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4444-1559
Elle CleavesUniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Ellen GluzmanTemple University Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Biana KotlyarRosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science Chicago Medical School, Chicago, IL, USA.
Rachel A RussoVA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA.
David C SchillingLoyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Carol Ping TsaoMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
James C WestUniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAssessment at medical schools plays a crucial role by providing feedback, monitoring student promotion, and informing resident selection. Limited research has been conducted to synthesize key features of assessments, and even less is known about how these studies sought validity and reliability evidence. A scoping review was performed to explore key features of assessments and their validity and reliability evidence.

methodsVarious databases were searched ranging from 2004 to April 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. In-depth reviews of the full text were performed on all selected empirical studies during the extraction phase.

resultsThe final analysis included 218 empirical studies. Various tools were identified, ranging from traditional multiple-choice questions to more contemporary tools incorporating technology and more contextualized workplace-based assessment. Patient care and medical knowledge were the most frequently assessed, primarily using the quantitative methodology. These studies often adopted traditional perspectives in collecting validity evidence based on relations to other variables and internal structure. Many of them used a narrow conceptualization of validity, with some failing to reference validity at all.

conclusionsThere was no single assessment that could easily differentiate medical students in a standardized, meaningful way. Despite the existence of contemporary validity theories for over two decades, there remains a need for greater education regarding the pivotal role of validity in conducting assessment research. While psychiatry and other residency programs will continue to face challenges in differentiating applicants, these changes present opportunities for medical educators and schools to validate assessments that are highly contextualized to their specific educational environments.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateInternship and ResidencySchools, MedicalStudents, MedicalHumansReproducibility of ResultsAssessmentCompetency-based educationReliabilityUndergraduate medical educationValidity

Identifiers

PMID40169522
PMCPMC12095347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.