Claims

Self-assessed abilities are uncorrelated with actual performance measures, and Kirkpatrick level 1 is generally not recommended

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Self-assessed abilities are uncorrelated with actual performance measures, and self-assessment (Kirkpatrick level 1) is generally not recommended in medical education studies. → Nielsen Martine Siw 2025

Evidence

Nielsen Martine Siw 2025

Nielsen Martine Siw, Ilkjær Frederik Veitland, Grejs Anders Morten, Nielsen Anders Bo, Konge Lars, Brøchner Anne Craveiro. (2025). Training and assessment of skills in neuraxial space access: a scoping review of educational approaches to lumbar puncture, epidural anaesthesia, and spinal anaesthesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2025.06.008

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review's discussion states that "self-assessed abilities are uncorrelated with actual performance measures", underpinning its recommendation against relying on Kirkpatrick level 1 outcomes.

"Kirkpatrick level 1, being self-assessment, is generally not recommended in medical education studies, as studies of self-assessment have shown that self-assessed abilities are uncorrelated with actual performance measures."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.