ArticleF1000Research2024
Protocol for conducting a scoping review on the influence of low-stakes assessment on student learning in medical education.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale and Background: Low-stakes assessments enhance student learning outcomes by providing a comprehensive view of performance and promoting competency-based education. Multiple low-stakes assessments encourage continuous learning and incorporate formative feedback for a realistic and long-term environment. Diverse assessment methods ensure psychometric rigor, utility and a programmatic assessment approach with multiple data points affording high-stakes decisions on progression. Objective: This scoping review aims to systematically identify and map existing literature on the use of low-stakes assessments in medical education and determine their impact on student learning outcomes in terms of, motivation and engagement achievements/competencies. Methods and Analysis: The review will use the Joanna Briggs Institute's framework for scoping review studies, searching eight databases and grey literature. A presearch will be done in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar using terms related to low-stakes assessment, formative assessment, continuous assessment, and programmatic assessment within the context of medical education. The Covidence Systematic Review tool will aid in screening and conflict resolution.The reference lists of included studies will be checked manually for other relevant literature. Two research team members will independently screen and extract data, resolving discrepancies with a third team member. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be refined iteratively based on key research themes.The review will follow PRISMA-P guidelines, focusing on the impact of low-stakes assessment on student learning in medical education. Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is required as all data will be collected from published and grey literature. Findings will be disseminated at relevant conferences and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.
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.