ReviewJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2024
Tools for assessing professional identity in health professions education: a scoping review.
Review in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Educational Interventions for Professional Identity Formation in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Measuring professional identity in health and social care students: single-item question versus the Macleod Clark Professional Identity Scale (MCPIS-9).Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Open Science in Undergraduate Medical Education: An International Framework for Transparency, Responsibility, and Professional Identity Formation.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of an instrument for medical students' self-assessment of professionalism: Reliability, content, and construct validity of the MediProf questionnaire.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Adaptation and modification of the professional identity formation scale for postgraduate trainees in basic health science: a mixed method study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- A longitudinal study on the professional identity formation of health promotion practitioners: evidence from undergraduate students in Switzerland.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the complexity and multidimensional nature of professional identity assessment in health professions education, it is essential to establish appropriate criteria. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review to explore the current knowledge in this process and map the directions for future research. The present review was based on the five-step framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Eligible articles were examined using descriptive analysis of studies on the characteristics and psychometrics of the tools for professional identity assessment and their underlying theories. After an extensive search, 9,924 studies were identified, 162 of which were selected for full-text review, and finally, 17 articles qualified for inclusion in the study. For the most part, the target group consisted of studies on nursing and medical students. In 14 of the included studies, tools and psychometric properties were mentioned. Most professional identity assessment tools were designed or developed based on identity theories, particularly the social identity theory and Kagan's constructive-developmental theory, which were used more often than others. This scoping review will help researchers to choose or develop reliable and valid tools under clear conceptual and theoretical frameworks to assess the formation and development of professional identity in health professions education.
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.