ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2026
A Novel 5-Item Survey Tool to Assess Psychological Safety Among Graduate Medical Education Trainees.
Article in Journal of graduate 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Psychological safety is a critical component of effective learning and team performance in medical education. However, no tool with validity evidence currently exists to measure it specifically among graduate medical education (GME) trainees. Objective: To develop a concise, trainee-centered survey tool to measure psychological safety in GME settings and to examine its content and internal structure among graduate medical trainees. Methods: We created 9 candidate items based on existing literature and expert feedback. These were incorporated into an annual institution-wide trainee survey at a single academic health care system. Responses were randomly divided into derivation and validation cohorts. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to produce and obtain validity evidence for the most effective and concise set of items. Results: Of the 480 trainees invited to take the survey, 400 (83%) returned completed responses. During the derivation phase (n=200), 4 items were removed for low tolerance, improving model fit. The final 5 items showed strong loading on a single factor. The 5 items assessed trainees' comfort level with sharing ideas, giving and receiving feedback, expressing uncertainty, and viewing mistakes as learning opportunities. In validation testing (n=200), confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (Comparative Fit Index=0.99, Tucker-Lewis Index=0.97, and standardized root mean squared residual=0.02). The composite score correlated positively with an external measure of psychological safety (r=0.67) and demonstrated high internal reliability (McDonald's omega=0.91). Conclusions: The scores on this 5-item scale demonstrated evidence of validity and reliability for assessing psychological safety among trainees.
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.