ReviewHNO2026
[Formal requirements for assessments-what is important?]
Review in HNO, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessments in undergraduate and graduate medical education are crucial for evaluating the competencies of learners. Assessments have both a control function (summative) and a feedback function (formative). This distinction is important, as the two aspects cannot easily be combined, and, therefore, it must be considered which function should be emphasized in each case.
objectiveThis article examines the formal requirements and quality criteria that assessments must meet, particularly with regard to objectivity, reliability, and validity.
methodsReferring to classical test theory, the three main criteria that are decisive for the quality of examinations are discussed. In addition, potential judgment biases and how to avoid them are outlined, as is how to improve assessment items by means of typical item characteristics.
resultsAssessments should be independent of the examiners. Written exams, especially multiple-choice tests, offer greater objectivity than oral exams. Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) increase the objectivity of practical exams. A reliable exam reflects the actual performance of the examinees and is as free as possible from random effects. Verifying the validity of an exam is an ongoing process that involves many variables. Simple forms of validity are easier to determine but are less meaningful.
conclusionThe quality of exams depends heavily on whether the abovementioned quality criteria are met. Systematic analysis of exam questions can be used to improve them in a targeted manner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41348224What 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.