ReviewIrish journal of medical science2026
The assessment of clinical competence in medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.
Review in Irish journal of medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Article
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
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic necessitated unprecedented changes to clinical education and assessment. Restrictions on in-person clinical encounters led to rapid adoption of digital assessment modalities, raising concerns about graduate preparedness and the validity of pandemic-adapted assessment approaches. Wojniusz, [40].
objectivesThis scoping review aimed to: (1) map approaches to assessing clinical competence in medical students during COVID-19; and (2) evaluate the validity, reliability, feasibility, and acceptability of pandemic-adapted assessments.
methodsFollowing Arksey and O'Malley's framework, we systematically searched six databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, ERIC, Google Scholar) for peer-reviewed empirical studies published March 2020-March 2023 examining clinical competence assessment in final-year medical students. Studies were analyzed using Van der Vleuten's utility framework (validity, reliability, feasibility, acceptability) and Miller's Pyramid to categorize competency levels assessed.
resultsFrom 1,247 references, 13 studies met inclusion criteria, representing 8 countries. Virtual OSCEs were the predominant assessment method (n = 8, 62%). Study designs were predominantly weak: surveys (n = 6), evaluative case studies (n = 4), and observational studies (n = 2), with only three cohort studies providing stronger evidence. Most studies (92%) focused on feasibility and acceptability rather than validity or psychometric properties. Physical examination and procedural skills assessment remained a critical unresolved limitation across all digital modalities. No studies employed generalizability theory or Kane's validity framework.
conclusionsA paucity of rigorous research on pandemic-adapted assessment validity exists. Published studies employed weak designs producing non-generalizable findings focused on feasibility over validity. Urgent research priorities include: longitudinal cohort studies comparing pandemic-trained graduates to pre-pandemic cohorts; psychometric validation of hybrid assessment models now institutionalized; application of contemporary validity frameworks to digital assessments; and equity analysis of differential impacts across student populations. The field requires systematic validity evidence before permanently adopting pandemic-adapted approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42081038What 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.