Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40500914›Full record

ReviewAnatomical sciences education2025

Expanding worldviews on psychometric analysis of measurement tools in health professions education and research.

Michelle D Lazarus, Mahbub Sarkar, Claire Palermo, Sze-Ee Soh, Melanie K Farlie

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Anatomical sciences education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Michelle D LazarusCentre of Human Anatomy Education (CHAE), Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Biomedical Discovery Institute, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0996-4386
Mahbub SarkarMonash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education (MCSHE), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Claire PalermoFaculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Sze-Ee SohDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.
Melanie K FarlieMonash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education (MCSHE), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6820-1496

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Worldviews influence research-from design to interpretation and reporting. Historically, psychometrics has been predominantly situated within a positivist paradigm, while social research has often aligned with interpretivist or critical paradigms. However, emerging perspectives in the philosophy-of-science are challenging this rigid alignment, inviting a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between worldviews and methodologies in the health professions. This article explores both historical and emerging worldviews related to psychometrics-asking readers to reconsider assumptions and preconceived ideas about which worldview applies to this field of research. Furthermore, this article challenges the psychometrics community to consider how the field can occupy seemingly competing worldviews and approaches, including those that have historically been more commonly associated with qualitative research-such as critical theory (under the broader umbrella of critical inquiry) and reflexivity. Using illustrative case examples applicable to the anatomical sciences and health professions, we discuss the evolution of perspectives on psychometrics and its relationship to worldviews through the lenses of classical test theory and item response theory to the contemporary paradigm of "critical psychometrics".

Indexed as

AnatomyEducational MeasurementHealth OccupationsPsychometricsHumansResearch Designanatomy and medical educationassessmentpsychometricsworldviews

Identifiers

PMID40500914
PMCPMC12319372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.