ArticlePEC innovation2025
The Pediatric Ethics & Professionalism Assessment Tool (Pedi-EPAT): Development and implementation of a novel, competency-based assessment.
Article in PEC innovation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To develop and demonstrate validation of a competency-based formative assessment tool, the Pediatric Ethics & Professionalism Assessment Tool (Pedi-EPAT). Methods: Using a multi-phased study design, a panel of national experts in pediatrics, ethics, and medical education participated in tool development and established content validity using a Delphi approach. To optimize rating accuracy and minimize inter-rater variation, the panel completed frame-of-reference training, consisting of inter-rater comparisons of 3 recorded, simulated scenarios involving parent-actors and pediatric trainees. Outcomes included degree-of-association of raters' ordinal assessments, agreement of ratings between experts and raters, and median ratings per simulated scenario. Kendall's coefficient was used to estimate consistency across raters, and a structural equation-modeling framework assessed internal reliability. Results: 11 experts participated in the 2-round Delphi. The final Pedi-EPAT achieved consensus and contained 34 items, including 2 items independent of the Delphi. During FOR training, consistency among the 6 raters by Kendall's coefficient was low-moderate (w = 0.33-0.35, Conclusion: This novel, competency-based, formative assessment tool demonstrated content validity and internal reliability. Practice implications: The Pedi-EPAT could aid supervising staff in providing high-quality assessments and feedback on ethical behavior and professionalism for pediatric trainees engaging in conversations with families.
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.