Key result
Rubric-based self-assessment yields higher BP measurement scores than closely aligned peer and faculty evaluations.
Why the study?
The utility of rubrics in triangulating faculty, peer, and self-assessment in blood pressure measurement remains underexplored.
Cross-Sectional (n=98)
No
p-value: p=<0.05
Rubric-based peer assessment is a reliable alternative for formative feedback in objective domains of blood pressure measurement among medical students, though self-assessment tends to be inflated.
Self-assessment may overestimate BP measurement skills; leaves open whether peer rubrics can substitute faculty evaluation in CBME.
Background: Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME) emphasizes formative, learner-centred assessment. Blood pressure (BP) measurement, a core clinical skill, integrates knowledge, skills, communication, ethics, and attitude. While rubrics are widely used to standardize evaluation, their utility in triangulating faculty, peer, and self-assessment in BP measurement remains underexplored. Aim: To evaluate the reliability and educational value of rubric-based faculty, peer, and self-assessment in BP determination among Phase 1 MBBS students using a mixed-methods approach. Methods: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study was conducted among 98 Phase 1 MBBS students in a South Indian medical college. Forty-nine students performed BP measurement, assessed simultaneously by 5 faculty and 49 peer using a validated Knowledge, Skill, Attitude, Ethics, and Communication (KSAEC) rubric. Self-assessment was done after performing the BP Measurement using a KSAEC rubric. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, paired comparisons, and correlation analysis. Qualitative feedback was collected via open-ended reflections and thematically analysed. Results: The rubric demonstrated high content validity (Scale-CVI = 0.92) and good inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.81). Self-assessment scores were consistently higher than peer and faculty scores, particularly in subjective domains such as communication, attitude, and ethics (p < 0.05). Peer assessments aligned more closely with faculty scores in objective domains, with strongest correlations for knowledge (r = 0.60–0.67). Qualitative analysis revealed themes of clarity, structured feedback, reflective learning, challenges in assessing subjective domains, and social bias. Conclusion: Rubric-based self- and peer-assessment foster reflective learning and reinforce technical competencies in early clinical training. While self-assessment is prone to inflation, it remains valuable for metacognition when scaffolded by clear criteria. Peer assessment is a reliable, scalable alternative for formative feedback, particularly in objective domains. For subjective competencies like professionalism and communication, multimodal strategies such as Mini-CEX and multisource feedback are recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abeetha et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Blood pressure determination assessment (n=98). Rubric-based self- and peer-assessment vs. Faculty assessment was evaluated on Reliability and educational value of rubric-based assessment (p=<0.05). Rubric-based self-assessment scores for blood pressure measurement were consistently higher than peer and faculty scores (p < 0.05), whereas peer assessments aligned closely with faculty scores.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: