ArticleBMC medical education2026
Improving consistency and feedback in essay-type assessments: evaluation of an assessment-cum-feedback checklist.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable assessment and meaningful feedback are essential to effective learning in medical education. However, conventional unstructured evaluation of essay-type responses is highly vulnerable to rater bias, inter-rater variability, and nonspecific feedback. To address these limitations, we developed an Assessment-cum-Feedback Checklist to provide a structured, criterion-based approach to scoring and feedback. In this study, we evaluated the checklist's effectiveness in enhancing the reliability, consistency, and clarity of assessment while exploring student and faculty perceptions of its educational value.
methodsWe used a mixed-methods design. Sixty-two first-year MBBS students and four faculty members (two junior < 5 years' experience; two senior > 10 years' experience) participated. Two essay-type questions were assessed independently by all four teachers using both the conventional unstructured method and the checklist-based method. Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Levene's test for equality of variance, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis to compare variability and agreement across methods. Data were analysed using JASP (version 0.18.3.0) at a 5% significance level. Student perceptions were gathered using a structured questionnaire, and faculty perceptions were explored through in-depth interviews. Qualitative data were analysed using QCAmap (2020). Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained.
resultsChecklist-based scoring demonstrated lower standard errors, standard deviations, and coefficients of variation, indicating improved precision and reduced subjective variability compared with the conventional method. Mean scores were lower with the checklist, and Bland-Altman analysis showed a negative bias, reflecting greater scoring stringency due to explicit criteria. ICC values increased notably with the checklist-particularly among senior teachers-demonstrating improved inter-rater reliability and tighter limits of agreement. Teachers reported that the checklist enhanced objectivity, reduced bias, clarified performance expectations, and standardized assessment practices. Students expressed strong support, citing improved clarity, transparency, and usefulness of feedback.
conclusionsThe Assessment-cum-Feedback Checklist was associated with measurable improvements in the reliability and consistency of essay-type assessment. Both faculty and students perceived the checklist-based approach to enhance clarity, transparency, and the usefulness of feedback by making assessment criteria explicit. With appropriate faculty orientation and iterative refinement, the checklist represents a promising and potentially adaptable tool for strengthening assessment and feedback practices in constructed-response formats in medical education.
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.