ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2025
Measuring adaptive expertise and adaptive performance in (becoming) healthcare professionals: a scoping review of measurement instruments.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Professional work in healthcare is increasingly disruptive, requiring professionals to be flexible and adaptable. Research on adaptive expertise and adaptive performance in healthcare has grown, and operationalisation and measurement of these concepts are crucial to meet professionals' evolving needs. This study provides an overview of measurement instruments for adaptive expertise and adaptive performance in (becoming) healthcare professionals, including an evaluation of their operationalisations and the amount of evidence supporting their quality. A scoping review was conducted, including an analysis of operationalisations and the amount of evidence supporting the quality of instruments, based on the criteria outlined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014). Seventeen articles were included, comprising nineteen measurement instruments, three of which were specifically developed for the healthcare domain. The instruments, categorized into six types, varied in the nature and volume of evidence supporting their quality. Analysis of the operationalisations led to a clearer understanding of the concepts, with themes emerging around adaptive expertise and adaptive performance. The study reveals a dominance of self-evaluation and job requirement instruments, while other methods, such as design scenarios, mixed-methods instruments, and collegial verbalization, are underrepresented. Instruments developed specifically for healthcare need further validation and reliability testing. The categorization of subscales into 13 themes provides further clarification of the concepts and suggestions for future research. Instruments to measure adaptive expertise and adaptive performance are limited and vary in conceptualisation, operationalisation and quality. Further research is needed to improve the validity and reliability of healthcare-specific instruments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.