1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Analysis of authentic assessment in health professions education: a scoping review and concept analysis protocol Translated title: Analyse de l'évaluation authentique dans l'éducation aux professions de santé : une revue de portée et un protocole d'analyse conceptuelle

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

              Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Can Med Educ J
                Can Med Educ J
                CMEJ
                Canadian Medical Education Journal
                Canadian Medical Education Journal
                1923-1202
                17 December 2024
                31 December 2024
                December 2024
                : 15
                : 6
                : 100-102
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Health Sciences Education, McGill University, Quebec, Canada;
                [2 ]Assistant Librarian, Schulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering, McGill University, Quebec, Canada
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Meredith Young, PhD; email: meredith.young@ 123456mcgill.ca
                Article
                CMEJ-15-100
                10.36834/cmej.79812
                11725013
                629d5ad8-5346-4b87-8fd5-ee3b2025bd41
                © 2024 Bazos, Quaiattini, Young; licensee Synergies Partners.

                This is an Open Journal Systems article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is cited.

                History
                Funding
                Funding: This research was supported by a 2023-2026 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Award (SSHRC) awarded to the first author, a student Bursary by the Research Group in Pursuit of Validity (Supported by the Fonds de Recherche de Quebec – Societé et Culture), a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Grant (435-2021-0651), and a Fonds de Recherche de Quebec – Santé Chercheur Boursier Junior 1 (253008) and Junior 2 (313176) Salary award to M. Young.
                Categories
                Works-in-Progress

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content1,489

                Cited by1

                Most referenced authors369