ArticleBMC medical education2025
Development and validation of checklists for standardized patients in dental education for special care health needs patients.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditionally, checklists or evaluation templates have been utilized to assess psychological and health-related issues in fields like psychology and pediatrics. Currently, their use has expanded, particularly in medical research and healthcare evaluation. This study aims to develop and validate checklists for standardized patient use in the subject " Special Care Health Needs patients" within the Dentistry Degree program, ensuring international applicability whenever clinical simulation is employed. MATERIAL AND
methodSix different scenarios were developed for student evaluation. Along with each scenario, a script was also created for the simulated participant or the instructor voicing the simulator. An evaluation template was designed for each clinical scenario. Once the scenarios and checklists were designed, 11 experts in the field of Special Care Health Needs Patients from six different universities were provided with a file for each simulation scenario, which they had to complete. The data collected from the validation of the evaluation templates by the expert panel were sent to the Statistical Support Section (SAE) of the University of Murcia. Data analysis was performed using R version 4.0.3.
resultsThe level of agreement among experts regarding the importance and scoring of items in six clinical evaluation templates was analyzed. Most results were statistically significant (p < 0.05), except for the physical examination dimension in several templates, likely due to the low number of items. Overall, high concordance was observed across competency dimensions, particularly in communication.
conclusionsThe positive statistical outcomes observed in our implementation of these checklists highlight their potential not only to assess students' clinical behavior with consistency but also to inform and refine educational strategies. The adoption of a standardized, rigorous approach to checklist development-such as the one applied in this study-may contribute significantly to the advancement of performance evaluation in healthcare education, promoting both learner competency and patient-centered care.
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.