ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Reliable Assessment of Healthcare Procedures: A Comparison of On-Site and Video-Based Methods.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Assessing performance is critical in simulation training programs. Traditionally, predefined evaluation forms completed by experts are used, but this approach may introduce bias. Common strategies to mitigate bias include averaging scores from multiple evaluators or using video recordings to minimize disagreements among assessors. This study compares performance scores obtained through real-time on-site observation, independent video assessment, and collaborative video assessment of venipuncture performance. Additionally, we evaluate whether combining these methods enhances scoring consistency. Methods: Eighteen medical students were invited to perform venipuncture trials, which were evaluated in three stages. Two evaluators observed and scored each trial on-site using a predefined evaluation form. The trials were video-recorded. At 12 weeks post-training, the evaluators independently reviewed the videos and assigned performance scores. At 14 weeks, they collaboratively reviewed the videos and provided a joint performance score. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the consistency between evaluators. Results: Mean scores differed significantly among the three assessment methods (P = 0.037), with independent video assessment yielding higher scores (75.3 ± 5.2) than on-site assessment (66.7 ± 6.1). Inter-rater reliability (ICC) ranged from 0.706 to 0.883, but was not statistically compared across methods.While collaborative assessment showed the highest consistency (0.889), implementing a multimodal approach would substantially increase faculty workload, as it requires scoring each student multiple times. Conclusion: Video-based assessments, particularly collaborative review, enable detailed and repeated analysis of procedural skills, improving scoring consistency. However, the feasibility and workload implications of combining multiple methods must be considered before implementation in training programs.
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.