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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Ericsson, K. A. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200410001-00022 · Cited by 2,988
Assessment in medical education
Epstein, R. M. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra054784 · Cited by 1,872
Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data
Downing, S. M. (2003) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x · Cited by 1,434
Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Schuwirth, L. W. T. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02094.x · Cited by 1,268
The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1996) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/bf00596229 · Cited by 1,247
The Mini-CEX: A Method for Assessing Clinical Skills
Norcini, J. J., Blank, L. L., Duffy, F. D., & Fortna, G. S. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-6-200303180-00012 · Cited by 730
Cited by
Patient Outcomes in Simulation-Based Medical Education: A Systematic Review
Zendejas, B., Brydges, R., Wang, A. T., & Cook, D. A. (2013) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2264-5 · Cited by 384
Validation of educational assessments: a primer for simulation and beyond
Cook, D. A., & Hatala, R. (2016) · Advances in Simulation · doi:10.1186/s41077-016-0033-y · Cited by 304
Programmatic assessment of competency-based workplace learning: when theory meets practice
Bok, H. G., Teunissen, P. W., Favier, R. P., Rietbroek, N. J., Theyse, L. F., Brommer, H., Haarhuis, J. C., van Beukelen, P., van der Vleuten, C. P., & Jaarsma, D. A. (2013) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-123 · Cited by 303
Faculty staff perceptions of feedback to residents after direct observation of clinical skills
Kogan, J. R., Conforti, L. N., Bernabeo, E. C., Durning, S. J., Hauer, K. E., & Holmboe, E. S. (2012) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04137.x · Cited by 180
Self-citationStudent perceptions of assessment and feedback in longitudinal integrated clerkships
Bates, J., Konkin, J., Suddards, C., Dobson, S., & Pratt, D. (2013) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12087 · Cited by 145
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
- 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.