ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Design and Validation of a Clinical Teaching Performance Checklist in Anesthesia Education: A Kane-Based Approach.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical teaching is essential in high-risk disciplines such as anesthesia. MSc students in Anesthesia Education require validated tools to assess their instructional performance during clinical internships. This study aimed to design and validate a clinical teaching performance checklist for MSc students in Anesthesia Education using Kane's argument-based validation framework. Methods: This descriptive-analytical, cross-sectional, single-center study was conducted at Iran University of Medical Sciences (2023-2025) with 11 fourth-semester MSc students. The checklist was developed using curriculum objectives, Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs), focus groups, and a two-round Delphi process with 10 experts. Face and content validity (Impact Score, CVR, CVI), reliability (Cronbach's alpha, ICC across two settings), and extrapolation evidence (Spearman correlation with global ratings) were evaluated. Results: Seven EPAs yielded a 20-item checklist. Content validity was acceptable (CVI≥0.79 for most items; two retained via expert consensus). The instrument showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.88) and excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC≥0.98). Extrapolation inference was supported by a strong correlation with faculty global ratings ( Conclusion: This study offers promising preliminary evidence supporting the feasibility, validity, and reliability of the EPA-based checklist for clinical teaching assessment. Integrating Kane's framework with EPAs provides a structured approach for formative evaluation; however, broader confirmation through larger, multicenter studies is required prior to widespread implementation.
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.