ArticleAEM education and training2025
Association of individual item characteristics with faculty competitiveness rankings in emergency medicine standardized letters of evaluation.
Article in AEM education and training, 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.
- Association of individual item characteristics with faculty competitiveness rankings in emergency medicine standardized letters of evaluation.AEM education and training · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Our objective was to compare the association between norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced items and faculty consensus ratings of applicant competitiveness based on the two most recent versions of the emergency medicine (EM) standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE). Methods: Faculty consensus ratings of mock EM SLOE competitiveness were obtained from prior studies of the current (2022) and previous (2016) SLOE formats. Items from each SLOE version were categorized by scope as either (1) focused or (2) global and by their referencing as (1) norm-referenced, (2) criterion-referenced, or (3) mixed. We used a linear regression model to measure the association between individual items and consensus rankings of SLOE competitiveness. We then evaluated which item types were most associated with competitiveness rankings. Results: Regarding scope, five items were focused and four were global in the 2016 SLOE compared to 11 focused items and two global items in the 2022 SLOE. The 2016 version of the SLOE contained eight norm-referenced items and one criterion-referenced item compared to four criterion-referenced items, two norm-referenced items, and seven mixed items in the 2022 version. Two items were significantly associated with competitiveness rankings in the 2016 SLOE. Both were global in scope and norm-referenced. Only one item was significantly associated with competitiveness rankings in the 2022 SLOE-the global norm-referenced item regarding the anticipated rank position. Conclusion: Only global norm-referenced items were significantly associated with faculty competitiveness ratings across two versions of the EM SLOE, which place different emphasis on norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced items. If the ability to stratify applicants remains a priority of the EM SLOE, global norm-referenced assessments should continue to be included.
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.