ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026
Inside Their Minds: A Multi-Institutional Exploration into the Decision-Making of Medical School Competency Committee Members.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the Experiences of Designated Assessors: an Interpretive Phenomenological Study.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Reframing Validity: How Values Shape Assessment in Postgraduate Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A competency committee is a group of experts who make a consensus-based judgement about a learner's competence. While evidence-based practices for post-graduate committees have been described, research and standards are lacking in undergraduate medical education. Medical school competency committees often distribute student reviews to individual members; therefore, understanding how they interpret assessment data is critical. Methods: Approaching our investigation from a social constructionist orientation, we conducted think aloud interviews with 22 competency committee members at 7 medical schools in the United States from 2023-2025. Participants were tasked with reviewing local student assessment data in preparation for a competency committee meeting and verbalizing thoughts to an investigator. We analyzed transcripts using an interpretivist approach, with sociocultural cognition theory as the primary interpretive lens. Results: Two major concepts depicted how participants processed student assessment data to arrive at competency determinations: contextual influences and internal reasoning processes. Contextual influences (i.e. goals, data available, and standards for interpreting the data) were outside the direct control of participants. Internal reasoning processes included: first impressions, interpreting trends, and negotiating conflicting data. Contextual influences varied and served as the lens through which participants interpreted assessment data. Discussion: This study provides the first examination into the thought processes used by medical school competency committee members to make their decisions. Participants used decision-making strategies that parallel those observed in other cognitive reasoning tasks. Contextual influences were foundational in how participants interpreted assessment data, highlighting how competence is socially constructed.
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.