ArticleBMC medical education2026
Peer assessment and feedback for effective lecturing in basic medical sciences-a mixed method study.
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
introductionFaculty development in effective lecture delivery is widely recognized as a critical strategy for improving student engagement in medical education. Peer feedback offers evaluative insights grounded in shared pedagogical and disciplinary expertise that complement, and extend beyond, student evaluations. This study aimed to pilot and evaluate a peer assessment and support initiative using the Peer Assessment of Medical Lecturing Instrument (PAMLI) to enhance lecturing practices among undergraduate basic science faculty and to explore faculty perceptions of the process.
methodsA mixed-methods study was conducted in the Department of Biological and Biomedical Sciences at Aga Khan University Medical College, Pakistan. Thirteen full-time basic science faculty members involved in undergraduate teaching were recruited through purposive sampling after ethical approval. Lectures were observed live by peer faculty using PAMLI, followed by structured formative feedback. Quantitative data included PAMLI scores and psychometric analyses (reliability, inter-rater agreement, factor analysis), while qualitative data were obtained through a post-intervention focus group discussion.
resultsPAMLI demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.896) and excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.891). Most items showed positive, moderate correlations with overall performance, supporting construct validity. Factor analysis identified two meaningful components with moderate to strong factor loadings. Qualitative findings revealed mixed faculty experiences: many perceived peer feedback as constructive and reflective, while others reported demotivation and concerns regarding ratings, bias, and fairness. Participants emphasized the need for assessor preparation, alignment of feedback with session objectives, and a culture of trust.
conclusionPeer assessment of lectures using a validated tool is an effective approach to improving teaching quality in medical education. Successful implementation requires institutional readiness, faculty buy-in, and sustainable recognition mechanisms to support peer observers and ensure constructive, unbiased feedback.
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.