Level of agreement
A non-significant association was found at the mid-term of the clinical training in the IG between CEs’ assessment total score and students’ self-assessment total score (Spearman correlation coefficient (r
The ∆E per student in IG at mid-term and at the end of the trainingA significant positive moderately strong association was found between CE’s assessment and student’s self-assessment scores at the end of the clinical training; rThe initial self-assessment results were used to divide each group into two sub-groups. In the IG, 11 students who overestimated their abilities at the mid-term were placed in one subgroup, while the remaining 11 were placed in another subgroup. Similarly, in the CG, 11 students who overestimated their abilities at the end of the clinical training were placed in one subgroup, and the remaining 17 were in the other. This resulted in a total of four sub-groups.The combined effect of group classification (IG vs. CG) and self-assessment agreement (overestimation vs. underestimation) is presented in Table 
Mid-term and final CEs’ APP scores by groups (IG vs. CG) and subgroups65[51–76]62[40–67]65[53–73]61[40–66]66[51–76]63[56–67]73[59–80]72[52–78]71[59–77]73[60–78]73[67–80]71[52–77]7[0–16]11[(-8)-20]7[0–13]13 [2–20]7 [1–16]10[(-8)-15]Values in the table are median [Min-Max], p-value* is based on Mann Whitney U test, p-value# is based on the Wilcoxon testStudents’ characteristics according to under and overestimating are presented in Table 
Student characteristics according to estimation level at first self-assessmentValues in the table are number, median [Min-Max], p-value is based on 𝛘2, Mann Whitney U test