ArticleAEM education and training2025
Development and Initial Validity Evidence for the EvaLeR Tool: Assessing Quality of Emergency Medicine Educational Resources.
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.
- Development and Initial Validity Evidence for the EvaLeR Tool: Assessing Quality of Emergency Medicine Educational Resources.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Emergency medicine (EM) residents increasingly favor digital educational resources over traditional textbooks, with studies showing over 90% regularly using blogs, podcasts, and other online platforms. No standardized instruments exist to comparatively assess quality across both formats, leading to uncertainty in resource selection and potential inconsistencies in learning. We developed the Evaluation of Learning Resources (EvaLeR) tool and gathered initial validity evidence for its use in assessing both textbooks and digital EM educational resources. Methods: This two-phase mixed-methods study developed the EvaLeR tool and gathered validity evidence for its use. Phase 1 comprised a systematic literature review, quality indicator analysis, and expert consultation. In Phase 2, 34 EM faculty evaluated 20 resources (10 textbook chapters, 10 blog posts) using EvaLeR. We collected evidence for reliability, internal consistency, and relationships with other variables. Results: The EvaLeR tool showed excellent average-measure reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97, 95% CI [0.94-0.99]). We found high internal consistency (Cronbach's Conclusions: Initial validity evidence supports the use of EvaLeR for quality assessment of both textbooks and digital EM educational resources. This tool provides educators with an evidence-based approach to resource selection, moving beyond format-based assumptions to focus on content quality, and represents the first standardized instrument for comparative evaluation across educational resource formats.
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.