ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Validation of Checklist to Evaluate Emergency Medicine Competencies of Medical Students in Simulation Training.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Simulation-based training is crucial for acquiring emergency medicine competencies during medical education. In Germany, teaching is largely competency-based and guided by the National Competence Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Education (NKLM) 2.0. Given the diversity of clinical scenarios and varying student expertise, a standardized assessment instrument is required for objective and reproducible performance evaluation. Moreover, such instruments are essential for educational research. Methods: We developed a checklist aligned with NKLM 2.0 and established emergency medicine guidelines. Content validity was ensured through expert panel review. The checklist assessed three domains (evaluation, background, and action) corresponding to key elements of the ISBAR framework. The instrument was applied to 265 medical students across different semesters and multiple simulation scenarios using purposive sampling and including all students from two semesters willing to participate. Construct validity was examined using factor analysis. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's α, and interrater reliability by calculating variance attributable to rater and station effects. Results: After exclusion of one item with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin estimator of 0.45, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a three-factor structure, with items loading on evaluation (CFA-loadings 0.831-0.901), background (0.582-0.736), and action (0.491-0.759). The CFA showed good model fit (CFI = 1.0, TLLI = 1.014, RMSEA < 0.001, SRMR = 0.045). Factors were moderately correlated (0.735-0.882), suggesting related dimensions of a common construct. Rater and station effects accounted for 14.2% of total variance. Cronbach's α was 0.730 overall, and 0.721 (evaluation), 0.557 (background), and 0.604 (action), respectively. Conclusion: Alignment with NKLM 2.0 supported content validity, while factor analysis confirmed the proposed construct structure. Overall internal consistency and acceptable rater-related variance as well as factor-correlation indicate that the checklist is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing emergency medicine competencies in undergraduate simulation training, though subscore interpretation remains limited due to low internal consistency of individual domains.
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.