ArticleBMC medical education2025
Residency trainees' perceptions and attitudes towards faculty evaluation: a cross-sectional study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResidency trainees' evaluations of faculty are recognized as a crucial component for enhancing teaching quality in medical education. This study aimed to investigate the perceptions and attitudes of residency trainees towards faculty evaluation.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among residency trainees in a hospital in southwest China from July to August 2024. Perceptions of faculty evaluation importance, optimal timing for evaluation, and factors considered important during evaluations were collected. Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was conducted to investigate the factors considered by residency trainees for a positive faculty evaluation. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 312 completed surveys were collected from 411 residency trainees. Of the 312 questionnaires collected, 273 valid responses remained after excluding those with answering time less than 3 min, representing an effective response rate of 87.50%. The majority of respondents were first-year residents (128, 46.89%) and females (173, 63.37%), with diverse specialties represented. The majority of residents (79.12%) viewed evaluating faculty as important, with 65.57% preferring regular evaluations. Only 118 (43.22%) residents held the idea that evaluating faculty makes residency training more effective. Communication skills and teaching skills were rated as the most important factors when evaluating faculty. Second-year trainees placed higher importance on better teaching skills (p = 0.012) and better communication skills (p = 0.033), and female trainees placed higher importance on being responsive and open to trainees feedback and suggestions (p = 0.003), tutor relationship with residency trainees (p = 0.012), and reasonable teaching plan (p = 0.006).
conclusionThe study provides insights into the perceptions and attitudes of residency trainees towards evaluations of faculty, emphasizing the importance of regular assessment and the need for tailored educational strategies that address the specific factors deemed important by trainees. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.