Development of peer assessment rubrics in simulation-based learning for advanced cardiac life support skills among medical students.

INTRODUCTION

Peer assessment can enhance understanding of the simulation-based learning (SBL) process and promote feedback, though research on its rubrics remains limited. This study assesses the validity and reliability of a peer assessment rubric and determines the appropriate number of items and raters needed for a reliable assessment in the advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) context.

METHODS

Ninety-five third-year medical students participated in the ACLS course and were assessed by two teachers (190 ratings) and three peers (285 ratings). Students rotated roles and were assessed once as a team leader on a ten-item rubric in three domains: electrocardiogram and ACLS skills, management and mechanisms, and affective domains. Messick's validity framework guided the collection of validity evidence.

RESULTS

Five sources of validity evidence were collected: (1) content: expert reviews and alpha, beta, and pilot tests for iterative content validation; (2) response process: achieved acceptable peer interrater reliability (intraclass correlation = 0.78, p = 0.001) and a Cronbach's alpha of 0.83; (3) internal structure: demonstrated reliability through generalizability theory, where one peer rater with ten items achieved sufficient reliability (Phi-coefficient = 0.76), and two raters enhanced reliability (Phi-coefficient = 0.85); construct validity was supported by confirmatory factor analysis. (4) Relations to other variables: Peer and teacher ratings were similar. However, peers rated higher in scenario management; further generalizability theory analysis indicated comparable reliability with the same number of teachers. (5) Consequences: Over 80% of students positively perceived peer assessment on a 5-point Likert scale survey.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the validity and reliability of ACLS SBL rubrics while utilizing peers as raters. Rubrics can exhibit clear performance criteria, ensure uniform grading, provide targeted feedback, and promote peer assessment skills.