SynthesisAnatomical sciences education2025
Meta
Synthesis in Anatomical sciences education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- MetaAnatomical sciences education · 2025Pooled it
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
To keep pace with medicine's unpredictable changes, medical trainees must learn to accurately monitor and evaluate themselves via metacognition (i.e., thinking about thinking). The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) can assess and guide the metacognitive development of trainees. This study summarizes existing psychometric evidence and meta-analyzes the internal consistency of the MAI across studies involving health professions education. In 2023, a literature search was performed across six databases for records that met predefined inclusion criteria. After two rounds of screening, MAI validity and reliability data were extracted from the eligible studies for analysis. Validity evidence for the dichotomous, five-point Likert, and sliding analog versions of the MAI were rated and analyzed according to "test content," "response processes," "internal structure," "relations to other variables," and "consequences of testing." The internal consistency range (min-max) of the MAI was estimated using random-effects, restricted maximum likelihood (REML) meta-analysis. Among the 1966 records screened, 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. The five-point Likert version of the MAI was the most supported, with validity evidence in the "test content," "internal structure," and "relations to other variables" categories. None of the MAI versions presented evidence related to "response processes" or "consequences of testing." The lowest aggregated internal consistency was estimated to be 0.805 and the highest as 0.844, suggesting very good reliability. The five-point Likert scale version of the MAI is most supported for use in health professions education, though validation efforts should continue to address all five sources of validity.
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.