ArticleBMC medical education2025
Designing and validating entrustable professional activities for emergency medicine: a stringent, construct-validity enhancing approach.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEntrustable professional activities (EPAs) are a cornerstone in many postgraduate medical education programs. However, the design of EPAs varies widely across programs, the validity of newly developed EPAs is rarely tested, and there is little agreement on how to validate them. This study aimed to describe and evaluate the consensus finding and validation process for the development of EPAs in Emergency Medicine (EM) in Switzerland following a stringent, construct-validity-enhancing approach.
methodsA conceptual framework was adopted as a template for the development and validation process. In the first step, a multi-institutional, core expert panel of EM physicians was assembled and received preparatory training. This group subsequently identified, developed, and revised EPAs in iterative rounds using Delphi and nominal group techniques. In the final step, a second expert panel, which was not involved in the development process, carried out validations of the EPAs using EQual rubric scores, generalizability analysis, and intra-class correlation coefficients.
resultsThe development process resulted in 24 EPAs subdivided into 7 junior EPAs and 17 senior EPAs. The validation of the EPAs showed a mean total EQual rubric score of 4.08 (± 0.04) on a 5-point scale for all EPAs. The generalizability analysis yielded a phi-coefficient of 0.66 and an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.83.
conclusionsBy using and challenging existing strategies and validity-enhancing instruments, we were able to develop and validate EPAs in EM. Key elements in this process were the adherence to a conceptual framework as a structural planning template, multimodal preparatory education of experts, and validation by a second, independent expert group via appropriate tools such as the EQual rubric score.
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.