ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026
Self-Monitoring Accuracy over Time for a Complex Diagnostic Skill.
Article in Perspectives on 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Moment-to-moment self-monitoring correlates well with task performance. However, little is known about the development of self-monitoring accuracy over time. This retention study explores the long-term development of self-monitoring in the performance of a complex clinical task. Methods: Advanced medical students, without prior ultrasound skills, participated in an ultrasound course and were evaluated using OSCEs immediately after the course (T1) and after a six-month follow-up (T2). Assessment included expert evaluation of skills and self-reported confidence levels at each station. Two linear mixed models were used to track changes of performance and confidence over time, and assess the effect of additional training, demographics, and performance on confidence levels. Results: The study included 141 medical students (65% female, median age 22 years). Performance scores across six OSCE stations were significantly higher at T1 compared to T2, with median scores of 36.0 and 34.3 points (on a scale of 0-50), while confidence levels decreased from a median of 3 to 2.8 (on a scale of 1-5). On average, self-reported confidence decreased in some proportion to the skill decline over the follow-up period of six months, although individual students displayed various patterns of performance and confidence changes between T1 and T2. Male students tended to report higher confidence levels, while training-related factors positively influenced confidence and performance. Conclusion: A small but growing body of research suggests that self-monitoring accuracy is not a stable trait but changes over time. Our results suggest an improved self-monitoring accuracy at the delayed retest. Future studies should assess self-monitoring in a more fine-grained way and over a longer period of time, and systematically assess inter-individual differences.
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.