ArticleBMC medical education2025
Faculty development for undergraduate student programmatic assessment: a Brazilian multi-centered longitudinal study.
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 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.
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
backgroundStudent assessment in many Brazilian health professions schools consists mainly of summative exams targeting knowledge. Between 2018 and 2020, a faculty development (FD) project was held for nine Brazilian institutions addressing programmatic assessment systems favouring comprehensive, formative assessment of clinical skills and professionalism. This study aimed at identifying the immediate effects of the FD activities, and determining long-term (one-year) changes in participant's assessment practices and other effects.
methodsParticipated 359 teachers from 30 undergraduate courses (13 different health professions). Local leaders took an initial workshops cycle (20 h), which was followed by 10 similar activities at the various institutions. The program design covered topics on assessment practices and systems using active teaching-learning strategies. In the end, participants evaluated the quality of the FD activities and self-evaluated the knowledge and skills acquired. One year later, participants were invited to complete an online structured questionnaire about the importance of the FD activities on 36 aspects of their work.
resultsFrom 75 to 100% of the 292 (81.3%) respondents had a very positive perception of the workshops, particularly about program design, delivered activities and facilitator's role, with no significant differences between the initial and the other cycles. Immediately after the workshops, perceived levels of knowledge and skills were significantly greater (p = 0.0001) than those before, for all topics evaluated. In the follow-up evaluation one year later, more than 90% of the 121 (33.7%) respondents to the reliable instrument (Cronbach's α = 0,90) attributed high importance of participation to their work in student assessment. More than 70% reported positive impacts on other aspects, such as teaching, relationship with students and colleagues and feelings of greater belonging and personal and professional appreciation.
conclusionOur findings indicate that well-designed traditional FD activities focusing solely on student assessment enhance teacher's knowledge and skills in this area, an effect that persists in the long-term. Other improving effects were observed on overall participants' performance and may represent broader positive impacts on teachers and their institutions. Additionally, it is likely that these FD activities may contribute to changes in the participating institutions leading to a more constructive and meaningful approach to student assessment.
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.