ArticleF1000Research2024
Protocol for Conducting Scoping Review on Reliability and Validity of Low-Stakes Assessments 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Low-stakes assessments (LSAs) are widely used in medical education to promote continuous learning by providing formative feedback and minimizing the high-stress environment associated with high-stakes assessments. While LSAs are recognized for their role in supporting student learning, questions remain about their reliability and validity. This scoping review aims to systematically identify and synthesize existing literature on the reliability and validity of LSAs within medical education contexts. This study aims to map the methodologies used to establish psychometric parameters, identify problems, and offer best practices. The review will use the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, encompassing a comprehensive search across six academic databases and grey literature to identify relevant studies published from 2000 onward. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data, using the Covidence tool for systematic screening and data extraction. Data will be analyzed using qualitative and quantitative approaches to provide an overview of reliability and validity evidence for LSAs in medical education. Insights into motivational and psychometric theories, such as Self-Determination Theory, Classical Test Theory, and Generalizability Theory, that inform LSA design and implementation will be used to analyse the findings in this review. Expected outcomes include a detailed map of the literature on LSA reliability and validity, identification of key challenges, theoretical underpinnings and recommended strategies for improving LSA practices in medical education. Findings will inform future research and provide guidelines for optimizing the use of LSAs to enhance student learning outcomes, assessment integrity, and the educational experience in medical training.
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.