ArticleBMC medical education2025
Enhancing self-regulated learning: a comparison of medical students' self-assessment and faculty evaluations on communication skills in simulated patient interviews.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-confidence through teaching: Gender differences in medical students' self-assessment of dermatological skills and learning effects.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a questionnaire for laboratory medicine knowledge and attitudes in clinical medical interns.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-assessment enables medical students to gain an in-depth understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses, as part of their self-regulated learning which is an important factor for lifelong learning, and to set personal development. The aim of this study was to compare first year medical students’ self-evaluation of their performance in interviewing a simulated patient within the scope of communication skills training with the evaluation of trainers to give feedback as part of the training.
methodsThis study was a cross-sectional analytical study and included all first-year students of Istanbul Medipol University Faculty of Medicine. Two separate evaluation forms were prepared for educators and students by adapting already used ones. Students and educators completed the online version of the forms after the simulated patient interview. Descriptive statistics, Cohen’s Kappa coefficient to measure inter-rater reliability, correlation analysis and dependent sample t test were used to measure the agreement in Likert scale questions.
resultsAll first-year students in charge of the course, 193 students in total, participated in the study. Of the students participating in the study, 64.8% were female and 35.2% were male. In two-category questions, moderate agreement was observed in five questions and good agreement in two questions. No difference was observed between trainers and students in the overall global 10-point rating scale. In Likert-type questions, a moderate difference was observed between trainers and students in some questions. The self-assessment of male students was statistically higher than that of female students (p < 0.05).
conclusionsFirst-year medical students generally aligned with faculty evaluations in their overall communication skills, they tended to rate themselves more positively in certain sub-skills. Notably, male students demonstrated a more positive self-assessment compared to their female counterparts, whereas female students tended to assess themselves more realistically These results highlight the need for a more structured approach to self-evaluation in medical education, ensuring that all students develop accurate self-perception and receive targeted support to enhance their communication competencies.
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.