ReviewAnatomical sciences education2025
Expanding worldviews on psychometric analysis of measurement tools in health professions education and research.
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.
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.
- Expanding worldviews on psychometric analysis of measurement tools in health professions education and research.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.