Cited by 56Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimating Learning Outcomes From Pre- and Posttest Student Self-Assessments: A Longitudinal Study

Schiekirka, Sarah, Reinhardt, Deborah, Beibarth, Tim, Anders, Sven, Pukrop, Tobias, Raupach, Tobias·2013·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Learning outcome is an important measure for overall teaching quality and should be addressed by comprehensive evaluation tools. The authors evaluated the validity of a novel evaluation tool based on student self-assessments, which may help identify specific strengths and weaknesses of a particular course. METHOD: In 2011, the authors asked 145 fourth-year students at Göttingen Medical School to self-assess their knowledge on 33 specific learning objectives in a pretest and posttest as part of a cardiorespiratory module. The authors compared performance gain calculated from self-assessments with performance gain derived from formative examinations that were closely matched to these 33 learning objectives. RESULTS: Eighty-three students (57.2%) completed the assessment. There was good agreement between performance gain derived from subjective data and performance gain derived from objective examinations (Pearson r=0.78; P<.0001) on the group level. The association between the two measures was much weaker when data were analyzed on the individual level. Further analysis determined a quality cutoff for performance gain derived from aggregated student self-assessments. When using this cutoff, the evaluation tool was highly sensitive in identifying specific learning objectives with favorable or suboptimal objective performance gains. CONCLUSIONS: The tool is easy to implement, takes initial performance levels into account, and does not require extensive pre-post testing. By providing valid estimates of actual performance gain obtained during a teaching module, it may assist medical teachers in identifying strengths and weaknesses of a particular course on the level of specific learning objectives.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0b013e318280a6f6

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Herzig, 2007, GMS Z Med Ausbild, 24, Doc109
  2. Moltner, 2010, GMS Z Med Ausbild, 27, Doc44
  3. Raupach, 2012, GMS Z Med Ausbild, 29, Doc44

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Schiekirka, S., Reinhardt, D., Beibarth, T., Anders, S., Pukrop, T., & Raupach, T.
Affiliations
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Raupach, Tobias
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2013-03
Volume
88
Issue
3
Pages
369-375
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2329021261
Cited by
56
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
learning outcomes, student self-assessment, pretest-posttest, validity, performance improvement, formative assessment, learning objectives, medical education, teaching quality evaluation, medical students
MeSH terms
Adult, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Female, Germany, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, ROC Curve, Self-Assessment, Reproducibility of Results

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