0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      How workplace‐based assessments guide learning in postgraduate education: A scoping review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Competency‐based medical education (CBME) led to the widespread adoption of workplace‐based assessment (WBA) with the promise of achieving assessment for learning. Despite this, studies have illustrated tensions between the summative and formative role of WBA which undermine learning goals. Models of workplace‐based learning (WBL) provide insight, however, these models excluded WBA. This scoping review synthesizes the primary literature addressing the role of WBA to guide learning in postgraduate medical education, with the goal of identifying gaps to address in future studies.

          Methods

          The search was applied to OVID Medline, Web of Science, ERIC and CINAHL databases, articles up to September 2020 were included. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers, followed by a full text review. Two members independently extracted and analysed quantitative and qualitative data using a descriptive‐analytic technique rooted in Billett's four premises of WBL. Themes were synthesized and discussed until consensus.

          Results

          All 33 papers focused on the perception of learning through WBA. The majority applied qualitative methodology (70%), and 12 studies (36%) made explicit reference to theory. Aligning with Billett's first premise, results reinforce that learning always occurs in the workplace. WBA helped guide learning goals and enhanced feedback frequency and specificity. Billett's remaining premises provided an important lens to understand how tensions that existed in WBL have been exacerbated with frequent WBA. As individuals engage in both work and WBA, they are slowly transforming the workplace. Culture and context frame individual experiences and the perceived authenticity of WBA. Finally, individuals will have different goals, and learn different things, from the same experience.

          Conclusion

          Analysing WBA literature through the lens of WBL theory allows us to reframe previously described tensions. We propose that future studies attend to learning theory, and demonstrate alignment with philosophical position, to advance our understanding of assessment‐for‐learning in the workplace.

          Abstract

          The authors' synthesis of literature that focuses on the overlap between workplace learning and workplace assessment highlights gaps and identifies key strategies for enabling "assessment for learning" in the workplace.

          Related collections

          Most cited references77

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

              Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Medical Education
                Medical Education
                Wiley
                0308-0110
                1365-2923
                May 2023
                November 21 2022
                May 2023
                : 57
                : 5
                : 394-405
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Medicine McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada
                [2 ] Department of Medicine Western University London Ontario Canada
                [3 ] McMaster Education Research, Innovation, and Theory Program McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada
                [4 ] Department of Medicine Queens University Kingston Ontario Canada
                [5 ] Department of Medicine Ottawa University Ottawa Ontario Canada
                Article
                10.1111/medu.14960
                36286100
                7a13e921-9b45-449f-ba83-56f4ed4a38fc
                © 2023

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article