ArticleBMC medical education2026
Social network analysis as a technology-enhanced assessment tool for collaborative skills in medical PBL.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCollaborative communication and teamwork are core competencies in medical education, yet they remain difficult to assess objectively during Problem-Based Learning (PBL). This study evaluates Social Network Analysis (SNA) as a technology-enhanced assessment tool to quantify peer collaboration patterns and identify learners' engagement profiles. We examined how PBL interaction networks differ across cohorts and whether SNA-derived indicators align with academic achievement.
methodsA comparative SNA was conducted across 17 PBL groups (N = 176; Year 1: 77, Year 2: 99). Directed, weighted ties were constructed by integrating ranked peer nominations with a validated five-item collaboration rubric to generate hybrid edge weights. Cohort-level network properties (density, path length, transitivity, reciprocity, modularity) and node-level centrality measures (in-degree, closeness, betweenness) were computed as indicators of collaborative competence. Between-cohort differences were analysed using non-parametric tests, and alignment between centrality and cumulative grade point average (CGPA) was examined to provide preliminary validity evidence.
resultsYear 2 demonstrated a more cohesive and integrated collaboration structure, reflected by higher density (0.313 vs. 0.277), greater transitivity (0.532 vs. 0.443), and shorter average path lengths (1.72 vs. 2.06). At the individual level, Year 2 students showed significantly higher closeness ([Formula: see text]) and lower betweenness (p = .027), indicating more efficient communication pathways. Across both cohorts, higher in-degree (representing peer-recognized collaborative competence) showed the strongest alignment with CGPA, whereas other centrality measures demonstrated smaller, cohort-dependent effects.
conclusionSNA provides quantifiable, competency-linked indicators of collaboration and communication in PBL, functioning as a novel technology-enhanced assessment tool. Patterns of social prominence and integration were meaningfully associated with academic achievement, suggesting that SNA may support early identification of highly engaged learners and those at risk of marginalization. These findings highlight the potential of SNA to complement existing assessment methods and enhance feedback within competency-based medical education. Further research using longitudinal and multilevel designs is warranted to strengthen the tool's validity and inform its integration into routine educational assessment.
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.