Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8554841›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1995

Audit and summative assessment: a criterion-referenced marking schedule.

J R Lough, J McKay, T S Murray

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Verifying appraisal evidence using feedback from trained peers: views and experiences of Scottish GP appraisers.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Summative assessment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997
    Article
  5. Summative assessment of vocational training: to be required by law.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997
    Article
  6. Training for audit: lessons still to be learned.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessment of competence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1996
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J R LoughDepartment of Postgraduate Medical Education, University of Glasgow.
J McKay
T S Murray
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background1996 will see the introduction of summative assessment of general practitioner registrars (trainees). One part of this assessment is the written submission of practical work. In the west of Scotland, audit projects have been chosen as the format for practical work. A valid and reliable marking schedule for such projects is needed.

aimA study was undertaken to develop a criterion-referenced marking schedule for assessing registrars' audit projects for summative assessment.

methodMedical and non-medical professionals, in a series of workshops, compiled a list of essential elements of good audit. These features were tested and refined using registrars' audit projects. All trainers in the west of Scotland were then sent a list of 14 criteria and asked to indicate whether each criterion was an essential or desirable component of a registrar's audit project for summative assessment. A final workshop was held to develop an audit marking schedule.

resultsOf 155 trainers in the west of Scotland, 135 replied to the list of criteria for registrar audit projects (87%). Ten criteria were deemed essential or desirable by 80% or more of the respondents. Participants in the final workshop selected five criteria which would form the audit project marking schedule for registrars undergoing summative assessment. These were: defined reason for choice of audit project, relevance of criteria chosen, appropriate preparation and planning, appropriate interpretation of relevant data and detailed proposals for change. For an audit project to pass assessment all five criteria must be present.

conclusionA criterion-referenced approach to assessing registrars' audit projects, developed from their trainers' opinions of essential or desirable criteria for good audit, is described. Further evaluation of the criterion-referenced marking schedule is required.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementFamily PracticeHumansStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID8554841
PMCPMC1239437
OpenAlexW1842453488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.