ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Matric or Mirror? Exploring Cognitive and Institutional Drivers of Student Course Evaluations: A Mixed-Methods Study in Medical Education.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Student evaluation of Courses (SECs) is widely used for educational quality assurance in medical education, yet their purpose to serve as a formative tool for development or a summative reflection of opinion is a subject of ongoing debate. This study examined how medical students and faculty perceive, navigate, and use teaching evaluation data, systematically identifying the procedural constraints and cognitive barriers that drive student evaluation decline across training years. Materials and Methods: This mixed-methods triangulation study integrated quantitative student survey data (N = 263; 70% response rate; 22% female, 77% male) across all four medical training years (years 1-4) with qualitative semi-structured faculty interviews (N=6) to cross-validate and enrich understanding of the cognitive and institutional drivers shaping the evaluation ecosystem. The validated 26-item questionnaire evaluated four primary domains: Teaching Quality, Administration, Process Awareness, and Tool Validity. Quantitative data were analyzed using Chi-square tests and ANOVA. Qualitative faculty interviews were analyzed thematically. Triangulation occurred through joint display matrices comparing student perceptions and faculty perspectives on evaluation purpose, process, and outcomes. Results: While 71.0% (n=187) of students viewed course evaluation as a tool for instructional improvement, a significant majority (82.5-87.4%) identified procedural transparency, confidentiality, and closed feedback loops as essential prerequisites for meaningful engagement. Results revealed a statistically significant cross-cohort decline in evaluation awareness and engagement across cohort years (p = 0.002), with first-year students reporting the highest process engagement scores (Mean = 67.3, SD = 8.0) compared to year 4 students (Mean = 62.9, SD = 7.4). Triangulated thematic analysis revealed that the decline in process domain in senior student participation stems from unaddressed feedback expectations and faculty ambiguity regarding administrative data use. Conclusion: Unaddressed student feedback and unclear administrative outcomes drive a significant cross-cohort decline in evaluation engagement. To address this potential erosion in perceived utility, medical institutions must establish an explicit, closed-loop reporting system that visibly demonstrates constructive, longitudinal curriculum changes derived from student feedback. Making post-evaluation actions visible, institutions may rebuild students' trust in the process.
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.