Evaluation of marking of peer marking in oral presentation.

BACKGROUND: Peer marking is an important skill for students, helping them to understand the process of learning and assessment. This method is increasingly used in medical education, particularly in formative assessment. However, the use of peer marking in summative assessment is not widely adopted because many teachers are concerned about biased marking by students of their peers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether marking of summative peer assessment can improve the reliability of peer marking. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, the peer-marking results of a summative assessment of oral presentations of two cohorts of students were compared. One group of students was told that their peer marks would be assessed against a benchmark consisting of the average of examiner marks and that these scores together with the peer and examiner marks would form their final exam results. The other group of students were just informed that their final exam results would be determined based on the examiner and peer marks. RESULTS: Based on examiner marks, both groups of students performed similarly in their summative assessment, agreement between student markers was less consistent and more polar than the examiners. When compared with the examiners, students who were told that their peer marking would be scored were more generous markers (their average peer mark was 2.4 % points higher than the average examiner mark) while students who were not being scored on their marking were rather harsh markers (their average peer mark was 4.2 % points lower than the average examiner mark), with scoring of the top-performing students most affected. CONCLUSIONS: Marking of peer marking had a small effect on the marking conduct of students in summative assessment of oral presentation but possibly indicated a more balanced marking performance

Parental experiences with changes in maternity care during the Covid-19 pandemic: A mixed-studies systematic review

10.1016/j.wombi.2022.08.004Women and Birth362e203-e21

Outcomes of interventions in neonatal sepsis: A systematic review of qualitative research.

While a systematic review exists detailing neonatal sepsis outcomes from clinical trials, there remains an absence of a qualitative systematic review capturing the perspectives of key stakeholders. Our aim is to identify outcomes from qualitative research on any intervention to prevent or improve the outcomes of neonatal sepsis that are important to parents, other family members, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers as a part of the development of a core outcome set (COS) for neonatal sepsis. A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases. Publications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal sepsis outcomes were included. Drawing on the concepts of thematic synthesis, texts related to outcomes were coded and grouped. These outcomes were then mapped to the domain headings of an existing model. Out of 6777 records screened, six studies were included. Overall, 19 outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The most frequently reported outcomes were those in the domains related to parents, healthcare workers and individual organ systemas such as gastrointestinal system. The remaining outcomes were classified under the headings of general outcomes, miscellaneous outcomes, survival, and infection. The outcomes identified in this review are different from those reported in neonatal sepsis clinical trials, thus highlighting the importance of incorporating qualitative studies into COS development to encapsulate all relevant stakeholders' perspectives