Table 2

Profile of self-assessment process in studies reviewed: training, predictive value, faculty calibration, and use of grading rubric/form

First Author, DateSelf-Assessment TrainingPredictive ValueFaculty CalibrationGrading RubricGrading Form Used in Clinic and Preclinic
Bookhan, 2005YesStudents’ performance improved in the second semester compared to the first.YesYes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteriaNot sure
Casap, 2011Not mentionedNot mentionedA navigational device was used.Not clearNot sure
Chambers, 2014Not mentionedStudents gave themselves slightly higher marks than did faculty members.YesYes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteriaNot sure
Cho, 2010No structured trainingStudents in the highest quartile underestimated their work; lower quartile students overestimated their work.YesYes, well-defined grading categories without criteriaNot sure
Curtis, 2008Not mentionedIt appeared that students improved their ability to self-assess between the first and second examinations.Intrarater reliability was established for a single grader.Yes, well-defined grading rubric with criteriaNot sure
DeSpain, 1984Not mentionedHigher performing students (A grades) were more likely to underestimate their work; students with B, C, D, & F grades overestimated their work.YesNot mentionedNot sure
Ericson, 1997No structured trainingNot adequately capturedNot mentionedYes, well-defined grading rubric with criteriaNot sure
Friedlander, 2011No structured trainingNot mentionedNot mentionedYes, but not describedNot sure
Lanning, 2011Not mentionedNoneNot mentionedYes, well-defined grading rubric with criteriaNot applicable
Manogue, 1999Not mentionedNoneNot mentionedNoNot applicable
Mattheos, 2004Not mentionedNoneNot mentionedNot mentionedYes
Mays, 2014YesNot mentionedSingle graderYes, well-defined grading rubric with criteriaNo
Mould, 2011Not mentionedNot mentionedNot mentionedNot mentionedYes
Nance, 2009Not mentionedNot mentionedNot mentionedYes, well-defined grading rubric with criteriaNot mentioned
Pileggi, 2004Not mentionedNot mentionedYesNot mentionedNot mentioned
San Diego, 2014Not mentionedStudents scored themselves higher on the quality of their performance than did the staff.Intrarater reliability was established.Yes, well-defined grading rubric with criteriaNot mentioned
Schönwetter, 2012No structured trainingNot mentionedNot mentionedNot applicableNot mentioned
Tuncer, 2015YesLower performing students overestimated and higher performing students underestimated their performance.
Improvements in self-assessment skills were not related to improved self-assessment.
YesNot mentionedNot mentioned
Wetherell, 1999Not mentionedNot mentionedYesNot mentionedYes
  • Note: See list of references for full source information on articles. “Date” refers to year of publication, not year of study.