ReviewAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026
Teaching raters to see: A faculty development innovation for robust assessment in health professions education.
Review in Advances in simulation (London, England), 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
Trustworthy simulation-based assessment depends on capable raters-but current approaches to rater training are often resource-intensive, inconsistently effective, and conceptually muddled. In practice, many programs focus on delivering training activities (e.g., frame-of-reference or behavioral observation training) without a clear model of the steps that build reliable, trustworthy assessments.We clarify the pathway to reliable, trustworthy assessment skills by distinguishing rater cognition-the cognitive work of recognizing, interpreting, and judging performance-from rater training, the educational processes intended to develop that capability. Rating is not a mechanical act of applying a rubric; it is a skilled perceptual and interpretive process. As we argue, a rubric does not do the seeing for you. While rubrics externalize expert judgment, raters must be trained to recognize and apply that expertise-learning to distinguish observable data from inference and to "see through the eyes of the rubric." Traditional rater training approaches can be reframed as mechanisms that build this underlying cognitive skill.Building on this conceptual clarification, we introduce a staged learning framework for rater readiness. Rather than treating training as a one-time intervention, we propose that raters must be prepared developmentally: first through foundational deliberate practice, then through situational application, and finally through expert-facilitated calibration and ongoing feedback.We illustrate this model through a pilot of an interactive, technology-enabled, partially asynchronous rater training program for the Advocacy-Inquiry Rubric. This pilot shows how simulation programs can greatly reduce the time required from experts to train raters, while also demonstrating feasibility, strong usability, and promising reliability outcomes.
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.