ArticleCanadian medical education journal2025
Documenting medical students' use of self-explanations: tool development and initial validity evidence.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 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.
- The CMEJ profile: a strong contribution to health professions education in Canada and around the world.Canadian medical education journal · 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
Introduction: Self-explanation (SE), an individual learning strategy for the development of clinical reasoning skills, has been implemented in undergraduate medical curricula. A tool for documenting students' appropriate use of SE is needed to ensure benefit on learning. The objective of this project was to develop such a tool and report on evidence of its validity. Methods: We used DeVellis's eight steps to develop the tool. Assessors applied the tool to 85 audio-recorded SEs. We calculated students' mean number of inferences (biomedical, clinical, monitoring) and case elements used when self-explaining to document validity evidence of content. We used interrater agreement, with intraclass correlation coefficients, to document validity evidence of response processes. Results: Three assessors documented the students' use of SE with the tool. They found means of 13.33 to 17.76 biomedical inferences, 16.27 to 27.04 clinical inferences, 2.03 to 3.10 monitoring statements, and listed 21.77 to 26.87 case elements. Interrater reliability varied from 0.53 to 0.96. Discussion: We developed the tool using the principles underlying SE. The way students used SE aligned with our expectations. Assessors used the tool in a consistent way. The tool could document students' use of SE in experimental or educational contexts.
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.