Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41626408›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026

Inside Their Minds: A Multi-Institutional Exploration into the Decision-Making of Medical School Competency Committee Members.

Michael S Ryan, Pim W Teunissen, Andrew S Parsons, Elizabeth Bradley, Sally A Santen, Anita V Shelgikar, Daniel J Schumacher, Matthew Kelleher, Shahab Jolani, Christina M Vitto and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Michael S RyanDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3266-9289
Pim W TeunissenDepartment of Gynecology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0930-0048
Andrew S ParsonsMaastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5631-9465
Elizabeth BradleyDepartment of Medical Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6807-3711
Sally A SantenDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Medical Education, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8327-8002
Anita V ShelgikarDepartment of Neurology University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Daniel J SchumacherDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5507-8452
Matthew KelleherDepartments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9064-2036
Shahab JolaniDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8508-0702
Christina M VittoDepartments of Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5814-585X
Alexandra H VinsonDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9062-7899
UME Competency Committee Collaborators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Advisory CommitteesClinical CompetenceCommittee MembershipDecision MakingEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchSchools, MedicalUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41626408
PMCPMC12857619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.