ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Multistakeholder Assessment of Project-Based Service-Learning in Medical Education: A Comparative Evaluation.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: Traditional single-assessment models in service-learning courses do not facilitate comprehensive assessments of learning outcomes. Effective assessments should incorporate perspectives from multiple stakeholders. The present study developed a service-learning course assessment model that incorporates assessments from multiple stakeholders, compared assessments between stakeholder types, and explored the effects of evaluator-student relationship. Participants and Methods: The study recruited 126 students from a service-learning course at China Medical University in 2024. Six different groups of stakeholders, namely peers, teaching assistants, service institutions, primary instructors, group instructors, and final report evaluators, evaluated student performance and learning outcomes. Experts ensured that assessment criteria were relevant and comprehensive. Confirmatory factor and principal component analyses were performed to assess the construct validity. The study used descriptive statistics and performed interrater reliability and correlation analyses. Results: The six groups of evaluators were mostly consistent in their assessments, which clustered into two distinct factors: individual performance (Factor 1) and team/service performance (Factor 2). Factor 1 comprised evaluations from peers, teaching assistants, primary instructors, and group instructors, emphasizing individual students' attendance, participation, and contribution throughout the course. Factor 2 comprised evaluations from service institutions and final report evaluators, focusing on group-level service outcomes and teamwork effectiveness. These two factors explained a cumulative variance of 77.94%. The study identified 15 correlation coefficients: 8 were significantly positive-indicating agreement within or across factors; 2 were significantly negative-highlighting potential divergences in perspective; and 5 were nonsignificant. The relationship between evaluator and student significantly affected assessment outcomes. For instance, peer assessments were the most variable due to subjective influences such as interpersonal dynamics and collaboration history, whereas group instructor assessments showed the least variability, possibly due to a more outcome-focused evaluation approach. Conclusion: Assessments by different types of evaluators are relatively consistent, and the evaluator-student relationship influences assessment outcomes.
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.