ArticleBMC medical education2025
Validating an assessment and feedback instrument for use in dietetics education: construct validity of the mini clinical evaluation exercise (Mini-CEX).
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 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.
- Effectiveness of a Specialty-Focused, Outpatient-Based Case Teaching Model in Residency Training for Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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
backgroundDietetics education lacks standardised tools for formative assessment and feedback in clinical placement for students, which impairs learning outcomes. The Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) is a seven-item instrument designed for clinical supervisors' direct observation and assessment of student performance on six clinical competencies plus overall competence. It has been validated in contexts of several disciplines, but not in dietetics education. In this study we aim to assess the construct validity of Mini-CEX for this context.
methodsWe developed three videotapes portraying dietetics students carrying out patient consultations in secondary health care. An assessment panel of dietitians reached consensus regarding the level of competence portrayed by each student. Clinical dietitians were then invited to watch the videos individually in randomised order and assess the students' clinical competencies using the Mini-CEX instrument. Construct validity was investigated by analysing agreement between assessment panel and participants' scores, interrater reliability, and rank correlation between competencies.
resultsClinical dietitians (n = 65) working in secondary health care in Norway participated in the study. On a scale of 1-9, the assessment panel's scores on the three students' overall clinical competence were 2, 5 and 7, participants mean scores were 1.9, 4.9 and 7.6, respectively. The proportion of participants' scores agreeing with the assessment panel scores ranged from 63 to 97% on the six competencies and overall competence. Interrater reliability between participants' scores was substantial (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.772). There were significant positive rank correlations between the competency variables in all videos (Kendalls' tau = 0.49-0.86, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsOur results indicate that participants were able to discriminate between dietetics students' levels of clinical competence using the Mini-CEX instrument in agreement with an assessment panel. The observed agreement and interrater reliability of the Mini-CEX scores are in favour of its construct validity in dietetics education. A valid observation and assessment using Mini-CEX constitutes an important step of the formative assessment process. Consensus amongst assessors and training in how to provide feedback is needed to ensure successful implementation.
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.