Bias in student evaluations of teaching in undergraduate medical education: a qualitative study from a medical school in Northern China
Background Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated...
Saved in:
| Published in | BMC medical education Vol. 25; no. 1; pp. 784 - 14 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
London
BioMed Central
27.05.2025
BioMed Central Ltd BMC |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
| ISSN | 1472-6920 1472-6920 |
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-025-07300-w |
Cover
| Abstract | Background
Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated these factors among medical students in China. This study aims to systematically explore the multidimensional causes of bias in Chinese undergraduate medical students’ teaching evaluations.
Methods
A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with medical students from a medical university in northern China. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, academic year, and major. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to biases in teaching evaluations.
Results
The analysis revealed several key themes contributing to biases in SET among medical students: (1) Teacher-Student Interaction: High personal affinity of teachers led to positive bias, while strict classroom management and poor teacher-student relationships resulted in negative bias. (2) Aspects Related to Medical Students: Course attributes and personal interest influenced evaluations, with elective courses and low-interest subjects leading to arbitrary bias. Group influences, such as peer effects and conformity, also contributed to bias. (3) Evaluation System Factors: Doubts about the anonymity of the evaluation system and lack of timely feedback led to self-protective scoring behaviors and arbitrary bias. The presence of informal agreements between teachers and students introduced moral hazards that further skewed evaluations.
Conclusions
Biases in medical students’ teaching evaluations are multifaceted and can primarily be attributed to teacher-student interpersonal relationships, student perceptions, and systemic issues within the evaluation process. To enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of SET, it is essential to address these biases by reshaping students’ understanding of evaluations, improving teacher-student communication, and establishing a digital evaluation system that ensures anonymity and timely feedback. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated these factors among medical students in China. This study aims to systematically explore the multidimensional causes of bias in Chinese undergraduate medical students' teaching evaluations. A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with medical students from a medical university in northern China. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, academic year, and major. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to biases in teaching evaluations. The analysis revealed several key themes contributing to biases in SET among medical students: (1) Teacher-Student Interaction: High personal affinity of teachers led to positive bias, while strict classroom management and poor teacher-student relationships resulted in negative bias. (2) Aspects Related to Medical Students: Course attributes and personal interest influenced evaluations, with elective courses and low-interest subjects leading to arbitrary bias. Group influences, such as peer effects and conformity, also contributed to bias. (3) Evaluation System Factors: Doubts about the anonymity of the evaluation system and lack of timely feedback led to self-protective scoring behaviors and arbitrary bias. The presence of informal agreements between teachers and students introduced moral hazards that further skewed evaluations. Biases in medical students' teaching evaluations are multifaceted and can primarily be attributed to teacher-student interpersonal relationships, student perceptions, and systemic issues within the evaluation process. To enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of SET, it is essential to address these biases by reshaping students' understanding of evaluations, improving teacher-student communication, and establishing a digital evaluation system that ensures anonymity and timely feedback. Abstract Background Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated these factors among medical students in China. This study aims to systematically explore the multidimensional causes of bias in Chinese undergraduate medical students’ teaching evaluations. Methods A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with medical students from a medical university in northern China. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, academic year, and major. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to biases in teaching evaluations. Results The analysis revealed several key themes contributing to biases in SET among medical students: (1) Teacher-Student Interaction: High personal affinity of teachers led to positive bias, while strict classroom management and poor teacher-student relationships resulted in negative bias. (2) Aspects Related to Medical Students: Course attributes and personal interest influenced evaluations, with elective courses and low-interest subjects leading to arbitrary bias. Group influences, such as peer effects and conformity, also contributed to bias. (3) Evaluation System Factors: Doubts about the anonymity of the evaluation system and lack of timely feedback led to self-protective scoring behaviors and arbitrary bias. The presence of informal agreements between teachers and students introduced moral hazards that further skewed evaluations. Conclusions Biases in medical students’ teaching evaluations are multifaceted and can primarily be attributed to teacher-student interpersonal relationships, student perceptions, and systemic issues within the evaluation process. To enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of SET, it is essential to address these biases by reshaping students’ understanding of evaluations, improving teacher-student communication, and establishing a digital evaluation system that ensures anonymity and timely feedback. BackgroundStudent evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated these factors among medical students in China. This study aims to systematically explore the multidimensional causes of bias in Chinese undergraduate medical students’ teaching evaluations.MethodsA qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with medical students from a medical university in northern China. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, academic year, and major. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to biases in teaching evaluations.ResultsThe analysis revealed several key themes contributing to biases in SET among medical students: (1) Teacher-Student Interaction: High personal affinity of teachers led to positive bias, while strict classroom management and poor teacher-student relationships resulted in negative bias. (2) Aspects Related to Medical Students: Course attributes and personal interest influenced evaluations, with elective courses and low-interest subjects leading to arbitrary bias. Group influences, such as peer effects and conformity, also contributed to bias. (3) Evaluation System Factors: Doubts about the anonymity of the evaluation system and lack of timely feedback led to self-protective scoring behaviors and arbitrary bias. The presence of informal agreements between teachers and students introduced moral hazards that further skewed evaluations.ConclusionsBiases in medical students’ teaching evaluations are multifaceted and can primarily be attributed to teacher-student interpersonal relationships, student perceptions, and systemic issues within the evaluation process. To enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of SET, it is essential to address these biases by reshaping students’ understanding of evaluations, improving teacher-student communication, and establishing a digital evaluation system that ensures anonymity and timely feedback. Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated these factors among medical students in China. This study aims to systematically explore the multidimensional causes of bias in Chinese undergraduate medical students' teaching evaluations.BACKGROUNDStudent evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated these factors among medical students in China. This study aims to systematically explore the multidimensional causes of bias in Chinese undergraduate medical students' teaching evaluations.A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with medical students from a medical university in northern China. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, academic year, and major. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to biases in teaching evaluations.METHODSA qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with medical students from a medical university in northern China. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, academic year, and major. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to biases in teaching evaluations.The analysis revealed several key themes contributing to biases in SET among medical students: (1) Teacher-Student Interaction: High personal affinity of teachers led to positive bias, while strict classroom management and poor teacher-student relationships resulted in negative bias. (2) Aspects Related to Medical Students: Course attributes and personal interest influenced evaluations, with elective courses and low-interest subjects leading to arbitrary bias. Group influences, such as peer effects and conformity, also contributed to bias. (3) Evaluation System Factors: Doubts about the anonymity of the evaluation system and lack of timely feedback led to self-protective scoring behaviors and arbitrary bias. The presence of informal agreements between teachers and students introduced moral hazards that further skewed evaluations.RESULTSThe analysis revealed several key themes contributing to biases in SET among medical students: (1) Teacher-Student Interaction: High personal affinity of teachers led to positive bias, while strict classroom management and poor teacher-student relationships resulted in negative bias. (2) Aspects Related to Medical Students: Course attributes and personal interest influenced evaluations, with elective courses and low-interest subjects leading to arbitrary bias. Group influences, such as peer effects and conformity, also contributed to bias. (3) Evaluation System Factors: Doubts about the anonymity of the evaluation system and lack of timely feedback led to self-protective scoring behaviors and arbitrary bias. The presence of informal agreements between teachers and students introduced moral hazards that further skewed evaluations.Biases in medical students' teaching evaluations are multifaceted and can primarily be attributed to teacher-student interpersonal relationships, student perceptions, and systemic issues within the evaluation process. To enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of SET, it is essential to address these biases by reshaping students' understanding of evaluations, improving teacher-student communication, and establishing a digital evaluation system that ensures anonymity and timely feedback.CONCLUSIONSBiases in medical students' teaching evaluations are multifaceted and can primarily be attributed to teacher-student interpersonal relationships, student perceptions, and systemic issues within the evaluation process. To enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of SET, it is essential to address these biases by reshaping students' understanding of evaluations, improving teacher-student communication, and establishing a digital evaluation system that ensures anonymity and timely feedback. Background Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated these factors among medical students in China. This study aims to systematically explore the multidimensional causes of bias in Chinese undergraduate medical students’ teaching evaluations. Methods A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with medical students from a medical university in northern China. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, academic year, and major. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to biases in teaching evaluations. Results The analysis revealed several key themes contributing to biases in SET among medical students: (1) Teacher-Student Interaction: High personal affinity of teachers led to positive bias, while strict classroom management and poor teacher-student relationships resulted in negative bias. (2) Aspects Related to Medical Students: Course attributes and personal interest influenced evaluations, with elective courses and low-interest subjects leading to arbitrary bias. Group influences, such as peer effects and conformity, also contributed to bias. (3) Evaluation System Factors: Doubts about the anonymity of the evaluation system and lack of timely feedback led to self-protective scoring behaviors and arbitrary bias. The presence of informal agreements between teachers and students introduced moral hazards that further skewed evaluations. Conclusions Biases in medical students’ teaching evaluations are multifaceted and can primarily be attributed to teacher-student interpersonal relationships, student perceptions, and systemic issues within the evaluation process. To enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of SET, it is essential to address these biases by reshaping students’ understanding of evaluations, improving teacher-student communication, and establishing a digital evaluation system that ensures anonymity and timely feedback. Background Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated these factors among medical students in China. This study aims to systematically explore the multidimensional causes of bias in Chinese undergraduate medical students' teaching evaluations. Methods A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with medical students from a medical university in northern China. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, academic year, and major. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to biases in teaching evaluations. Results The analysis revealed several key themes contributing to biases in SET among medical students: (1) Teacher-Student Interaction: High personal affinity of teachers led to positive bias, while strict classroom management and poor teacher-student relationships resulted in negative bias. (2) Aspects Related to Medical Students: Course attributes and personal interest influenced evaluations, with elective courses and low-interest subjects leading to arbitrary bias. Group influences, such as peer effects and conformity, also contributed to bias. (3) Evaluation System Factors: Doubts about the anonymity of the evaluation system and lack of timely feedback led to self-protective scoring behaviors and arbitrary bias. The presence of informal agreements between teachers and students introduced moral hazards that further skewed evaluations. Conclusions Biases in medical students' teaching evaluations are multifaceted and can primarily be attributed to teacher-student interpersonal relationships, student perceptions, and systemic issues within the evaluation process. To enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of SET, it is essential to address these biases by reshaping students' understanding of evaluations, improving teacher-student communication, and establishing a digital evaluation system that ensures anonymity and timely feedback. Keywords: Student evaluations of teaching (SET), Bias, Undergraduate medical education, Teaching evaluation system improvement Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated these factors among medical students in China. This study aims to systematically explore the multidimensional causes of bias in Chinese undergraduate medical students' teaching evaluations. A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with medical students from a medical university in northern China. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, academic year, and major. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to biases in teaching evaluations. The analysis revealed several key themes contributing to biases in SET among medical students: (1) Teacher-Student Interaction: High personal affinity of teachers led to positive bias, while strict classroom management and poor teacher-student relationships resulted in negative bias. (2) Aspects Related to Medical Students: Course attributes and personal interest influenced evaluations, with elective courses and low-interest subjects leading to arbitrary bias. Group influences, such as peer effects and conformity, also contributed to bias. (3) Evaluation System Factors: Doubts about the anonymity of the evaluation system and lack of timely feedback led to self-protective scoring behaviors and arbitrary bias. The presence of informal agreements between teachers and students introduced moral hazards that further skewed evaluations. Biases in medical students' teaching evaluations are multifaceted and can primarily be attributed to teacher-student interpersonal relationships, student perceptions, and systemic issues within the evaluation process. To enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of SET, it is essential to address these biases by reshaping students' understanding of evaluations, improving teacher-student communication, and establishing a digital evaluation system that ensures anonymity and timely feedback. |
| ArticleNumber | 784 |
| Audience | Academic |
| Author | Wei, Lifeng Zhong, Linjun Zhang, Gangyu Chi, Haoyu Sun, Chao Li, Yuanheng Li, Jida Wei, Kun Jiao, Mingli Fan, Chao Tang, Hanye Ma, Mingxue Wang, Yazhou Sha, Zhuowa Sun, Peihang |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Yuanheng surname: Li fullname: Li, Yuanheng organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University – sequence: 2 givenname: Chao surname: Sun fullname: Sun, Chao organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University – sequence: 3 givenname: Yazhou surname: Wang fullname: Wang, Yazhou organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University – sequence: 4 givenname: Haoyu surname: Chi fullname: Chi, Haoyu organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University – sequence: 5 givenname: Hanye surname: Tang fullname: Tang, Hanye organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University – sequence: 6 givenname: Mingxue surname: Ma fullname: Ma, Mingxue organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University – sequence: 7 givenname: Lifeng surname: Wei fullname: Wei, Lifeng organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University – sequence: 8 givenname: Linjun surname: Zhong fullname: Zhong, Linjun organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University – sequence: 9 givenname: Jida surname: Li fullname: Li, Jida organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University – sequence: 10 givenname: Kun surname: Wei fullname: Wei, Kun organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University – sequence: 11 givenname: Zhuowa surname: Sha fullname: Sha, Zhuowa organization: Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University – sequence: 12 givenname: Chao surname: Fan fullname: Fan, Chao organization: Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University – sequence: 13 givenname: Gangyu surname: Zhang fullname: Zhang, Gangyu organization: Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University – sequence: 14 givenname: Peihang surname: Sun fullname: Sun, Peihang organization: China medical university – sequence: 15 givenname: Mingli surname: Jiao fullname: Jiao, Mingli email: minglijiao@126.com organization: School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40426114$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp9kstu1DAUhiNURC_wAixQJDZsUnxLHLNBZdRCpQo2sLZOfMl4lLFbO5mqT8Br48z0NgihWErs850_-U_-4-LAB2-K4i1Gpxi3zceEiUCiQqSuEKcIVbcviiPMOKkaQdDBs-fD4jilFUKYtxS_Kg4ZYqTBmB0Vv784SKXzZRonbfxYmg0ME4wu-FQGW44G1NL5fkYmr03sI-hcN-XaaKdgKI2e1Jb_VEJ5M8HgxrzdmK3iXWljWOfCA53UMoRhVvse4rg00ZeLrA-vi5cWhmTe3N9Pil8X5z8X36qrH18vF2dXlaobPFadAtQQqC23RAijNbeWcS5qKyhtrGpbpXQNNXSMQUs6imkDDeuYbjukO0RPisudrg6wktfRrSHeyQBObg9C7CXE0anByJYKjC1qbE1qxk0tMNOCU0KYEhYjyFqfd1rXU5f9qTy-CMOe6H7Fu6Xsw0ZighHPvy4rfLhXiOFmMmmUa5eUGQbwJkxJUoIJ53nRjL7_C12FKfo8q5lq6vnzxBPVQ3bgvA35xWoWlWctw1zQBs9DOP0HlS9t1k7lkFmXz_ca3j13-mjxIUcZIDtAxZBSNPYRwUjOYZW7sMocVrkNq7zNTXTXlDLsexOfLP2n6w_b0ux_ |
| Cites_doi | 10.1080/0260293022000009294 10.1080/02602938.2021.1909702 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.006 10.1080/02602938.2023.2177252 10.1007/s11162-015-9391-x 10.1186/s12909-015-0311-8 10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1187 10.1155/2022/3323866 10.1016/j.socec.2020.101633 10.1007/s10639-022-11156-8 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2002.66.5.tb03537.x 10.5539/gjhs.v8n7p251 10.1093/jeea/jvx057 10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4 10.1016/j.clnesp.2021.11.011 10.2753/CED1061-1932420212 10.1007/S40037-013-0080-1 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.10.002 10.1207/s15328015tlm1702_5 10.3102/0034654313496870 10.31235/osf.io/45mzw 10.1080/02602938.2018.1466266 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01065 10.1111/medu.12647 10.1097/00001888-197307000-00003 10.4067/S0717-95022022000400867 10.1080/01973533.2020.1756817 10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737 10.3390/su8070643 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02624 10.1080/10872981.2023.2220175 10.1007/s11092-011-9140-4 10.1186/1472-6920-12-45 10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.02.002 10.3961/jpmph.22.471 10.1016/j.nepr.2011.10.007 10.1371/journal.pone.0216241 10.1080/02602938.2016.1261083 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 10.1080/10401334.2020.1742124 10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007 10.1186/s12909-020-02227-w |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | The Author(s) 2025 2025. The Author(s). COPYRIGHT 2025 BioMed Central Ltd. 2025. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. The Author(s) 2025 2025 |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s) 2025 – notice: 2025. The Author(s). – notice: COPYRIGHT 2025 BioMed Central Ltd. – notice: 2025. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. – notice: The Author(s) 2025 2025 |
| DBID | C6C AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 0-V 3V. 7X7 7XB 88B 88C 88E 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABUWG AFKRA ALSLI AZQEC BENPR CCPQU CJNVE DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH GNUQQ K9. M0P M0S M0T M1P PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEDU PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS Q9U 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-025-07300-w |
| DatabaseName | Springer Nature OA Free Journals CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】 ProQuest Central (Corporate) Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Education Database (Alumni Edition) Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland Social Science Premium Collection ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central ProQuest One Education Collection ProQuest Central Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central Student ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Education Database ProQuest Health & Medical Collection Healthcare Administration Database Medical Database ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Education ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China ProQuest Central Basic MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest One Education ProQuest Central Student ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Central China ProQuest Central ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central Korea Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) Social Science Premium Collection Education Collection ProQuest Central Basic ProQuest Education Journals ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Health Management ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Medical Library ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Health Management (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Education Journals (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | Publicly Available Content Database MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: C6C name: Springer Nature OA Free Journals url: http://www.springeropen.com/ sourceTypes: Publisher – sequence: 2 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 3 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 4 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 5 dbid: BENPR name: ProQuest Central url: https://www.proquest.com/central sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine Education |
| EISSN | 1472-6920 |
| EndPage | 14 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_83911f06f52547e5914d973224c9f10a PMC12107909 A841793610 40426114 10_1186_s12909_025_07300_w |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GeographicLocations | China United States--US Germany |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: China – name: United States--US – name: Germany |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: National Natural Science Foundation of China grantid: 72174049 funderid: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809 – fundername: National Natural Science Foundation of China grantid: 72174049 |
| GroupedDBID | --- 0-V 0R~ 23N 2WC 53G 5GY 5VS 6J9 7X7 88E 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML ABUWG ACGFO ACGFS ACHQT ACIHN ADBBV ADRAZ ADUKV AEAQA AENEX AFKRA AFPKN AHBYD AHMBA AHYZX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALSLI AMKLP AMTXH AOIJS AQUVI ARALO AZQEC BAPOH BAWUL BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CJNVE CS3 DIK DU5 DWQXO E3Z EBD EBLON EBS EMB EMOBN F5P FYUFA GNUQQ GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HMCUK IAO IHR INH INR ITC IVC KQ8 M0P M0T M1P M~E O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PPXIY PQEDU PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PUEGO RBZ RNS ROL RPM RSV SHS SOJ SV3 TR2 UKHRP W2D WOQ WOW XSB AAYXX ALIPV CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM PMFND 3V. 7XB 8FK K9. M48 PKEHL PQEST PQUKI PRINS Q9U 7X8 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c561t-bca062a5f7f299edd7ff47795f9336fc88ccd5a5ab44a82b3136a64b4d8b0db03 |
| IEDL.DBID | DOA |
| ISSN | 1472-6920 |
| IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:23:39 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 18:37:21 EDT 2025 Fri Sep 05 16:00:11 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 25 09:29:12 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 17 21:56:19 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 10 21:07:20 EDT 2025 Sun Jun 01 01:35:38 EDT 2025 Sun Jul 06 05:04:52 EDT 2025 Sat Sep 06 07:30:44 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | Teaching evaluation system improvement Undergraduate medical education Bias Student evaluations of teaching (SET) |
| Language | English |
| License | 2025. The Author(s). Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c561t-bca062a5f7f299edd7ff47795f9336fc88ccd5a5ab44a82b3136a64b4d8b0db03 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://doaj.org/article/83911f06f52547e5914d973224c9f10a |
| PMID | 40426114 |
| PQID | 3216559149 |
| PQPubID | 42593 |
| PageCount | 14 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_83911f06f52547e5914d973224c9f10a pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_12107909 proquest_miscellaneous_3212772773 proquest_journals_3216559149 gale_infotracmisc_A841793610 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A841793610 pubmed_primary_40426114 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12909_025_07300_w springer_journals_10_1186_s12909_025_07300_w |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2025-05-27 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2025-05-27 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 05 year: 2025 text: 2025-05-27 day: 27 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | London |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | BMC medical education |
| PublicationTitleAbbrev | BMC Med Educ |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | BMC Med Educ |
| PublicationYear | 2025 |
| Publisher | BioMed Central BioMed Central Ltd BMC |
| Publisher_xml | – name: BioMed Central – name: BioMed Central Ltd – name: BMC |
| References | SR Cox (7300_CR4) 2022; 32 P Spooren (7300_CR14) 2013; 83 DLDYP Kember (7300_CR49) 2002; 27 7300_CR24 DPJ Im (7300_CR26) 2023; 52 7300_CR27 7300_CR23 7300_CR22 SRD Schiekirka (7300_CR39) 2012; 12 D Al-Shaikhli (7300_CR51) 2023; 28 L MacNell (7300_CR17) 2015; 40 JH Donaldson (7300_CR42) 2012; 12 F Mengel (7300_CR15) 2019; 17 L Sinclair (7300_CR28) 2000; 126 ZKM Sohrabi (7300_CR25) 2015; 8 D Feistauer (7300_CR35) 2017; 42 NM Afonso (7300_CR38) 2005; 37 S Uijtdehaage (7300_CR40) 2015; 49 M Centoni (7300_CR34) 2021; 45 7300_CR10 7300_CR12 7300_CR11 7300_CR9 O Poldin (7300_CR50) 2016; 57 7300_CR6 MHFL Leamon (7300_CR7) 2005; 17 HW Marsh (7300_CR13) 1997; 52 D Clayson (7300_CR30) 2021; 47 B Uttl (7300_CR3) 2017; 54 7300_CR46 7300_CR45 M RCN (7300_CR1) 2017; 49 L Zhang (7300_CR43) 2016; 8 B Dunrong (7300_CR8) 2009; 42 7300_CR41 GHG Li (7300_CR37) 2018; 9 CD Steyn (7300_CR2) 2018; 44 MH Leamon (7300_CR21) 2005; 17 BAM Van den Berg (7300_CR19) 2013; 2 S Uijtdehaage (7300_CR5) 2015; 49 AM Ewing (7300_CR44) 2012; 31 7300_CR36 7300_CR32 FN-A Alhija (7300_CR16) 2017; 54 7300_CR31 W Stroebe (7300_CR18) 2020; 42 7300_CR33 Z Zerihun (7300_CR47) 2012; 24 LTCO van Bruggen (7300_CR20) 2020; 32 DH Naftulin (7300_CR29) 1973; 48 ZBJ Zerihun (7300_CR48) 2012; 24 |
| References_xml | – volume: 27 start-page: 411 issue: 5 year: 2002 ident: 7300_CR49 publication-title: Assess Evaluation High Educ doi: 10.1080/0260293022000009294 – volume: 47 start-page: 313 issue: 2 year: 2021 ident: 7300_CR30 publication-title: Assess Evaluation High Educ doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1909702 – ident: 7300_CR31 doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.006 – ident: 7300_CR10 doi: 10.1080/02602938.2023.2177252 – volume: 57 start-page: 448 issue: 4 year: 2016 ident: 7300_CR50 publication-title: Res High Educt doi: 10.1007/s11162-015-9391-x – ident: 7300_CR23 doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0311-8 – ident: 7300_CR6 – volume: 52 start-page: 1187 issue: 11 year: 1997 ident: 7300_CR13 publication-title: Am Psychol doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1187 – ident: 7300_CR12 doi: 10.1155/2022/3323866 – ident: 7300_CR41 doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2020.101633 – volume: 28 start-page: 343 issue: 1 year: 2023 ident: 7300_CR51 publication-title: Educ Inform Technol doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11156-8 – ident: 7300_CR22 doi: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2002.66.5.tb03537.x – volume: 8 start-page: 251 issue: 7 year: 2015 ident: 7300_CR25 publication-title: Global J Health Sci doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v8n7p251 – volume: 17 start-page: 535 issue: 2 year: 2019 ident: 7300_CR15 publication-title: J Eur Econ Assoc doi: 10.1093/jeea/jvx057 – volume: 40 start-page: 291 issue: 4 year: 2015 ident: 7300_CR17 publication-title: Innov High Educ doi: 10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4 – ident: 7300_CR24 doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2021.11.011 – volume: 42 start-page: 100 issue: 2 year: 2009 ident: 7300_CR8 publication-title: Chin Educ Soc doi: 10.2753/CED1061-1932420212 – volume: 37 start-page: 43 issue: 1 year: 2005 ident: 7300_CR38 publication-title: Fam Med – volume: 2 start-page: 264 year: 2013 ident: 7300_CR19 publication-title: Perspect Med Educ doi: 10.1007/S40037-013-0080-1 – volume: 31 start-page: 141 issue: 1 year: 2012 ident: 7300_CR44 publication-title: Econ Educ Rev doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.10.002 – volume: 17 start-page: 119 issue: 2 year: 2005 ident: 7300_CR7 publication-title: Teach Learn Med doi: 10.1207/s15328015tlm1702_5 – volume: 126 start-page: 577 issue: 5 year: 2000 ident: 7300_CR28 publication-title: Psychol Bull – volume: 45 start-page: 250 issue: 3 year: 2021 ident: 7300_CR34 publication-title: Educational Meas – volume: 83 start-page: 598 issue: 4 year: 2013 ident: 7300_CR14 publication-title: Rev Educ Res doi: 10.3102/0034654313496870 – ident: 7300_CR9 doi: 10.31235/osf.io/45mzw – volume: 44 start-page: 11 issue: 1 year: 2018 ident: 7300_CR2 publication-title: Assess Evaluation High Educ doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1466266 – volume: 9 start-page: 1065 year: 2018 ident: 7300_CR37 publication-title: Front Psychol doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01065 – volume: 49 start-page: 928 year: 2015 ident: 7300_CR40 publication-title: Med Educ doi: 10.1111/medu.12647 – volume: 48 start-page: 630 issue: 7 year: 1973 ident: 7300_CR29 publication-title: Acad Med doi: 10.1097/00001888-197307000-00003 – ident: 7300_CR46 – ident: 7300_CR11 doi: 10.4067/S0717-95022022000400867 – volume: 42 start-page: 276 issue: 4 year: 2020 ident: 7300_CR18 publication-title: Basic Appl Soc Psychol doi: 10.1080/01973533.2020.1756817 – volume: 49 start-page: 72 issue: 1 year: 2017 ident: 7300_CR1 publication-title: J Educational Adm History doi: 10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737 – volume: 8 start-page: 643 issue: 7 year: 2016 ident: 7300_CR43 publication-title: Sustainability doi: 10.3390/su8070643 – ident: 7300_CR33 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02624 – volume: 32 start-page: 82 issue: 1 year: 2022 ident: 7300_CR4 publication-title: Mark Educ Rev – ident: 7300_CR36 doi: 10.1080/10872981.2023.2220175 – volume: 24 start-page: 99 year: 2012 ident: 7300_CR48 publication-title: Evaluation Account doi: 10.1007/s11092-011-9140-4 – volume: 12 start-page: 1 year: 2012 ident: 7300_CR39 publication-title: BMC Med Educ doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-45 – volume: 54 start-page: 1 year: 2017 ident: 7300_CR16 publication-title: Stud Educational Evaluation doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.02.002 – volume: 17 start-page: 119 issue: 2 year: 2005 ident: 7300_CR21 publication-title: Teach Learn Med doi: 10.1207/s15328015tlm1702_5 – volume: 52 start-page: 100 issue: 2 year: 2023 ident: 7300_CR26 publication-title: J Prev Med Public Health doi: 10.3961/jpmph.22.471 – volume: 49 start-page: 928 issue: 9 year: 2015 ident: 7300_CR5 publication-title: Med Educ doi: 10.1111/medu.12647 – volume: 12 start-page: 101 issue: 2 year: 2012 ident: 7300_CR42 publication-title: Nurse Educ Pract doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2011.10.007 – volume: 24 start-page: 99 issue: 2 year: 2012 ident: 7300_CR47 publication-title: Educational Assess Evaluation Account doi: 10.1007/s11092-011-9140-4 – ident: 7300_CR32 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216241 – volume: 42 start-page: 1263 issue: 8 year: 2017 ident: 7300_CR35 publication-title: Assess Evaluation High Educ doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1261083 – ident: 7300_CR27 doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa – volume: 32 start-page: 371 issue: 4 year: 2020 ident: 7300_CR20 publication-title: Teach Learn Med doi: 10.1080/10401334.2020.1742124 – volume: 54 start-page: 22 year: 2017 ident: 7300_CR3 publication-title: Stud Educational Evaluation doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007 – ident: 7300_CR45 doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02227-w |
| SSID | ssj0017831 |
| Score | 2.3787231 |
| Snippet | Background
Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can... Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their... Background Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can... BackgroundStudent evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can... Abstract Background Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref springer |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
| StartPage | 784 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Beliefs, opinions and attitudes Bias China College Administration Data collection Education Education, Medical, Undergraduate - standards Educational Administration Educational aspects Educational Environment Educational Practices Educational Quality Educational research Educational Resources Faculty, Medical Female Graduate Students Higher education Humans Individual Characteristics Influence of Technology Information technology Instructional Improvement Interviews Interviews as Topic Learning Literature Reviews Male Medical colleges Medical Education Medical Evaluation Medical research Medical students Methods Methods Research Physical Education Psychological aspects Qualitative Research Rating Scales Research methodology Schools, Medical Semi Structured Interviews Set (Psychology) Structured Interviews Student evaluations of teaching (SET) Students, Medical - psychology Teachers Teaching - standards Teaching evaluation system improvement Teaching methods Theory of Medicine/Bioethics Undergraduate medical education Young Adult |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: Health & Medical Collection dbid: 7X7 link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9RADB5BkRAXxJtAQYOExAFGzWNe4YJaRFUhlROV9jaazKPsgaQkW1X8Av429iTZJUVwXXujTGzP2GP7MyGvK5EHZUXJorCcIfod057XrKyxCNA6z9OMpdMv8uSMf16J1XThNkxllfOemDZq3zm8Iz-oykKC9wsO_YeLHwynRmF2dRqhcZPcStBloM9qtQ24CqWrYm6U0fJgwDuXmuEA1wTTzq4Wh1HC7P97Z_7jaLpeNnktd5qOpON75O7kS9LDUfj3yY3QPiC3T6ds-UPy62htB7pu6TACWNIdtPdAu0g3UyUlsmAvWX_eWw_0QL-P6Rsa5vKP99TSsf8yAYWnJ_6k2JsChJl7SIie-LSUDQp9S9N47kfk7PjT148nbBq8wBy4UxvWOJvL0oqoIpxWwXsVI1eqFrGuKhmd1s55YYVtOLe6bKqiklbyhnvd5L7Jq8dkr-3a8JRQCz6Clzl3BQQujYf4zIfa8roBzy-KvMrI21kC5mLE1zApLtHSjPIyIC-T5GWuMnKEQtpyIjZ2-qHrz81kagZcvqKIuYwCgl8VUGc8YhKV3NWxyG1G3qCIDVowyNHZqREBXhixsMyhxqlsFfiVGdlfcILluSV5VhIzWf5gdnqakVdbMv4Tq9na0F0mnhKiGqVg-U9GndouiaegtuAZ0QttW6x5SWnX3xIuOGLBKfhiGXk3K-buvf79UZ_9fxnPyZ0ymQz2Lu6TvU1_GV6AI7ZpXiZr-w1bwzDq priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest – databaseName: Springer Nature OA Free Journals dbid: C6C link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV1Lb9RADB5BkRAXBOWVtqBBQuIAEZlkntzaqlWFVE5U6m00mQfsoVm02ariF_C3sSfJtilw6DV2JpnY3rHX9mdC3jWiisqJukzC8RLR70oduClrg0WAzgeeZyydfpUnZ_zLuTgfYXKwF-Zm_p5p-anH_0lMiUNXM7R6eXWfPBCskTkxKw83GQOlGzY1xfzzvtnBk_H5__4VvnEM3S6RvJUnzcfP8RPyePQb6f4g6KfkXuy2ceTyWJ6xTR6ejlnyZ-T3wcL1dNHRfgCupNeQ3j1dJroeKyiRBXvIVt9XLgA90oshbUPjtO5n6ujQd5kBwvOKvyj2pABh4u4zkieulrNAcdXRPJb7OTk7Pvp2eFKOAxdKD27Uumy9q2TtRFIJTqkYgkqJK2VEMk0jk9fa-yCccC3nTtdtA3Jwkrc86LYKbdW8IFvdsouvCHXgGwRZcc8gYGkDxGUhGsdNCx5fElVTkA-TNOzPAVfD5nhESzvIzoLsbJadvSrIAQpsw4mY2PkCqIodTcyCq8dYqmQSEPSqKAzjAbGIau5NYpUryHsUt0XLBZl6NzYgwAsjBpbd1ziNrQF_siB7M06wOD8nTwpjR4vvbVMzKfCZpiBvN2S8E6vYuri8zDw1RDNKwfZfDvq12RLPwSzjBdEzzZvteU7pFj8yHjhiwCn4YgX5OCnp9Xv9_6Pu3I19lzyqszlhD-Me2VqvLuNrcMjW7ZtsiX8Al9Qt9g priority: 102 providerName: Springer Nature |
| Title | Bias in student evaluations of teaching in undergraduate medical education: a qualitative study from a medical school in Northern China |
| URI | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-025-07300-w https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40426114 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3216559149 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3212772773 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC12107909 https://doaj.org/article/83911f06f52547e5914d973224c9f10a |
| Volume | 25 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3daxQxEA9aQXwRv12tRwTBB126u_n2rXe0FKFFioXiS8huEr0H9-T2SvEv8N92Jrt77VbEF18O7pLLJpmZm5mbmd8Q8oaJIignqjwKx3NEv8u15yavDCYBusbz1GPp-EQenfGP5-L8WqsvzAnr4YH7i9sDBV6WsZBRgCujgjAl94gwU_HGxLJIphEsOzpTQ_xAaVaOJTJa7nX4b4vJsXVrAmjPLydqKKH1__mbfE0p3UyYvBE1Tcro8AG5P1iRdL_f_UNyK7SPyN3jIU7-mPyaL11Hly3teuhKegXq3dFVpJshhxKnYBXZ-uvaeRgP9HsfuKFhTPz4QB3tKy8TRHha8SfFqhQYGGd3CcsTV0txoLBuaWrM_YScHR58XhzlQ8uFvAFDapPXjStk5URUEfRU8F7FyJUyIhrGZGy0bhovnHA1505XNSuZdJLX3Ou68HXBnpKddtWG54Q6sA68LHhTgstSe_DMfDCOmxpsvigKlpF3IwXsjx5ZwyaPREvb08sCvWyil73MyByJtJ2JqNjpA-AVO_CK_RevZOQtktii7AIdGzeUIMCGEQXL7mvsx8bAoszI7mQmyFwzHR6ZxA4y31lWlVLgM01GXm-H8ZuYx9aG1UWaU4E_oxQc_1nPU9sj8eTOljwjesJtkzNPR9rlt4QIjihwCm4sI-9Hxrza198v9cX_uNSX5F6VBAtrG3fJzmZ9EV6BobapZ-S2Olczcmd-cPLpFN4t5GKW5BReT-dffgN5LTwZ |
| linkProvider | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1Lb9NAEB6VVAIuiDeGAosE4gBW_Vi_kBBqoFVKmwqhVuptu95HyQGnxKmi_gL-Db-RmbWd4CK49ZrZrLyex854Zr4BeBkngclkEvk2kdwn9Ds_17zwo4KKAKXS3M1YGh-koyP--Tg5XoNfXS8MlVV2NtEZaj1V9I18M47CFL1fdOg_nP3waWoUZVe7ERqNWOyZiwWGbPX73U_I31dRtLN9-HHkt1MFfIW-wtwvlQzSSCY2s2iKjdaZtTzLisRibJ9aledK6UQmsuRc5lEZh3EqU15ynZeBLoMY970G65w6WgewPtw--PJ1mbfI8jjsWnPydLOmrzyFTyNjHTC8v-hdf25KwN93wR-X4eVCzUvZWncJ7tyGW633yrYacbsDa6a6C9fHbX7-HvwcTmTNJhWrG8hMtgITr9nUsnlbu0lLqHttdjqTGumGfW8SRsx0BSfvmGRNx6eDJnc7XjDqhkFCt7p2GKK0m8s_mVnF3EDw-3B0JUx5AINqWplHwCR6JToNuAoxVCo1RoTaFJIXJfqaNgliD950HBBnDaKHcJFQnoqGXwL5JRy_xMKDITFpuZLQuN0P09mpaJVboJMZhjZIbYLhdmZISjWhIEVcFTYMpAevicWCbAbyUcm29QEfmNC3xFZOc-Bi9GQ92OitRF1XfXInJKK1NbVYaYYHL5Zk-ifVz1Vmeu7WRBhHZRke_2EjU8sjcRdGh9yDvCdtvTP3KdXkm0MiJ_S5DN-YB287wVw9179f6uP_H-M53BgdjvfF_u7B3hO4GTn1oc7JDRjMZ-fmKbqB8_JZq3sMTq5a3X8DIsBwkQ |
| linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV1Lb9RADB5BkSouCMorUGCQkDhA1CTz5tYWVuXRigOVehtN5lH2QLZKUlX8Av4240mybQocuK6d2Uw8ju3Y_ozQK8IKLwyr8sAMzQH9LpeOqrxSUARorKNpxtLhET84pp9O2MmVLv5U7T6lJIeeBkBpavqdMxcGFZd8p4OvJyqHUawJcD2_uIluUTB9kK7l--s8gpCknFpl_nrdzBwl1P4_381XjNP1wslr2dNklBZ30Z3Rm8S7g_jvoRu-2YJBzGPRxhbaPBxz5_fRr72l6fCywd0AZ4kvgb47vAq4H-sqgQU6y9rT1rhI9_jHkMzBflr3HTZ46MZMsOFpxZ8YOlUiYeLuEr4nrJZyQ75tcBrW_QAdLz582z_IxzEMuY3OVZ_X1hS8MiyIEG2Xd06EQIVQLChCeLBSWuuYYaam1MiqJiXhhtOaOlkXri7IQ7TRrBr_GGETPQbHC2rLGMbULkZrzitDVR39wMAKkqE3kzT02YC2oVOUIrkeZKej7HSSnb7I0B4IbM0JSNnph1V7qkfF09EBLMtQ8MBiKCw8UyV1gFBUUatCWZgMvQZxa9DnKFNrxraEeMOAjKV3JcxoI9HLzND2jDPqoZ2TpwOjx_dAp0lVcgb_qTL0ck2GK6G2rfGr88RTxRhHiLj9R8P5Wm-JphC3pBmSs5M32_Oc0iy_J5RwQIYT8Yll6O10SC_v698P9cn_sb9Am1_fL_SXj0efn6LbVdIsaHLcRht9e-6fRY-tr58npfwN8MM5Kg |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bias+in+student+evaluations+of+teaching+in+undergraduate+medical+education%3A+a+qualitative+study+from+a+medical+school+in+Northern+China&rft.jtitle=BMC+medical+education&rft.au=Yuanheng+Li&rft.au=Chao+Sun&rft.au=Yazhou+Wang&rft.au=Haoyu+Chi&rft.date=2025-05-27&rft.pub=BMC&rft.eissn=1472-6920&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=14&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs12909-025-07300-w&rft.externalDBID=DOA&rft.externalDocID=oai_doaj_org_article_83911f06f52547e5914d973224c9f10a |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1472-6920&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1472-6920&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1472-6920&client=summon |