ArticleBMC medical education2025
Development and psychometric evaluation of virtual consultation scoring rubric for the standardized patient.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionStandardized patients (SPs) are integral to training medical students in virtual consultation (VC) skills. A key aspect of their role is the ability to evaluate student performance and deliver meaningful feedback to enhance learning. This study aimed to design and validate a scoring rubric specifically for SPs to assess undergraduate medical students' performance during VC encounters.
methodsThis study adopted a seven-step approach to rubric development. The content and face validation of the rubric were conducted with the participation of relevant stakeholders. The reliability of the rubric was assessed by measuring the internal consistency and the inter-rater, intra-rater and test-retest correlation coefficient of the SPs evaluation scores of medical students' performance in VC.
resultsA rubric comprising ten evaluation dimensions and a four-level scoring scale was developed. The item content validity index (I-CVI) exceeded 0.78, while the average content validity index (AVE-CVI) was 0.98. Face validity was assessed qualitatively which confirmed the rubric's clarity and relevance. Five SPs participated in evaluating medical student's performance in VC encounters, each reviewing 35 videos. The rubric demonstrated strong internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.82. Additionally, inter-rater, intra-rater, and test-retest correlation coefficients indicated a high level of reliability.
conclusionThe newly developed SP assessment rubric of medical students' VC skills has reached the desired level of psychometric property making it suitable for use in training and assessing VC competency. Future research is required to test its applicability to be used in an alternative form, for example as a guide for SPs to provide formative verbal feedback to medical students.
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.