ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
The Optimizing Whiteboard Lectures (OWL) Checklist: Validation of a Novel "Chalk Talk" Assessment Tool.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternal medicine (IM) trainees routinely use whiteboard mini-lectures (WMLs) to teach in clinical settings. Despite their widespread use, there is no standardized, evidence-based assessment tool to evaluate WML quality and structure formative feedback.
objectiveTo develop and collect validity evidence for the Optimizing Whiteboard Lectures (OWL) Checklist, a novel WML assessment tool, using Kane's four-stage model
designProspective, multi-center observational study.
participantsFifty-one IM residents, fellows, and CMRs delivered 56 WMLs. Twenty-four raters (attendings, fellows, and chief medical residents (CMRs)) performed a total of 91 (43 individual and 48 paired or multi-rater) WML observations. MAIN MEASURES: The OWL Checklist comprises 20 dichotomous behavioral items and a global measure of teaching performance for a maximum score of 24. We collated validity evidence across Kane's four inferences: (1) scoring, through instrument development, rater training, and rater perception surveys; (2) generalization, via inter-rater reliability; (3) extrapolation, by stratifying scores across post-graduate year (PGY) level and by rater perception surveys; and (4) implications, via teacher perception surveys. KEY
resultsWe found strong reliability among raters (κ = 0.86) and a significant upward trend in OWL Checklist scores from PGY-1 to CMRs (p = 0.004). Nineteen raters (79%) completed rater perception surveys and endorsed the OWL Checklist as objective (ɑ = 0.68) and reflective of whiteboard teaching best practices (ɑ = 0.79). Forty-four trainees (86%) completed teacher perception surveys and indicated that the OWL Checklist facilitated useful feedback on their whiteboard teaching skillset (98%) that they planned to incorporate into their next WML (100%).
conclusionsWe collected validity evidence for all four stages of Kane's model. This research addresses an important gap in IM trainee evaluation by validating a novel assessment tool that codifies best practices for whiteboard teaching skills and facilitates formative feedback on WMLs. The OWL Checklist has the potential to be utilized in summative assessment. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41749006What 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.