Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 598

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tools for Direct Observation and Assessment of Clinical Skills of Medical Trainees: A Systematic Review

Kogan, Jennifer R., Holmboe, Eric S., Hauer, Karen E.·2009·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2009.1365
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Direct observation of medical trainees with actual patients is important for performance-based clinical skills assessment. Multiple tools for direct observation are available, but their characteristics and outcomes have not been compared systematically. OBJECTIVES: To identify observation tools used to assess medical trainees' clinical skills with actual patients and to summarize the evidence of their validity and outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Electronic literature search of PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL, and Web of Science for English-language articles published between 1965 and March 2009 and review of references from article bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies described a tool designed for direct observation of medical trainees' clinical skills with actual patients by educational supervisors. Tools used only in simulated settings or assessing surgical/procedural skills were excluded. Of 10 672 citations, 199 articles were reviewed and 85 met inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently abstracted studies using a modified Best Evidence Medical Education coding form to inform judgment of key psychometric characteristics. Differences were reconciled by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 55 tools were identified. Twenty-one tools were studied with students and 32 with residents or fellows. Two were used across the educational continuum. Most (n = 32) were developed for formative assessment. Rater training was described for 26 tools. Only 11 tools had validity evidence based on internal structure and relationship to other variables. Trainee or observer attitudes about the tool were the most commonly measured outcomes. Self-assessed changes in trainee knowledge, skills, or attitudes (n = 9) or objectively measured change in knowledge or skills (n = 5) were infrequently reported. The strongest validity evidence has been established for the Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX). CONCLUSION: Although many tools are available for the direct observation of clinical skills, validity evidence and description of educational outcomes are scarce.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.1365

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kogan, J. R., Holmboe, E. S., & Hauer, K. E.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2009-09-23
Volume
302
Issue
12
Pages
1316
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2009.1365
OpenAlex
W2077120921
Cited by
598
References
6
FWCI
32.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.