Measurement properties of instruments assessing the clinical learning environment in health professions education: a COSMIN-based systematic review.

IF 5.5 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Matthias Michael Walter, Alexander P Schurz, Nele Adriaenssens, Evert Zinzen, Slavko Rogan
{"title":"Measurement properties of instruments assessing the clinical learning environment in health professions education: a COSMIN-based systematic review.","authors":"Matthias Michael Walter, Alexander P Schurz, Nele Adriaenssens, Evert Zinzen, Slavko Rogan","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2026.23.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The clinical learning environment (CLE) is a crucial component of health professions education, providing the foundation for developing profession-specific clinical skills. This systematic review aimed to identify evaluated assessment tools for the CLE in health professions education and to report their measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was preregistered (IDESR000098), and its protocol was published previously. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed articles in English that developed and validated tools for assessing the CLE among undergraduate health professions students and followed the COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Multiple electronic databases, including MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, ERIC, Education Research Complete, and CINAHL, were searched; studies were independently screened, and data were extracted. Data were synthesized using best-evidence synthesis according to COSMIN guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 6,236 articles included in title and abstract screening, 55 were eligible for full-text screening. A supplementary search identified 13 additional articles, resulting in 40 included articles. Overall, 28 tools were identified, with 4 tools (PET, PET-Midwifery, DECLEI, and MidSTEP) demonstrating sufficient content validity. Only MidSTEP demonstrated sufficient structural validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Only a minority of the included tools provided sufficient evidence of content and structural validity according to the COSMIN criteria. This finding indicates a systemic need for higher standards in monitoring clinical placements and identifies tools that should be re-evaluated and supported by additional research. Limitations include the exclusion of EMBASE and gray literature and the reliance on studies that predominantly used psychometric-first rather than content-validity-first designs.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"23 ","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13472927/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2026.23.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The clinical learning environment (CLE) is a crucial component of health professions education, providing the foundation for developing profession-specific clinical skills. This systematic review aimed to identify evaluated assessment tools for the CLE in health professions education and to report their measurement properties.

Methods: This systematic review was preregistered (IDESR000098), and its protocol was published previously. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed articles in English that developed and validated tools for assessing the CLE among undergraduate health professions students and followed the COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Multiple electronic databases, including MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, ERIC, Education Research Complete, and CINAHL, were searched; studies were independently screened, and data were extracted. Data were synthesized using best-evidence synthesis according to COSMIN guidelines.

Results: Of the 6,236 articles included in title and abstract screening, 55 were eligible for full-text screening. A supplementary search identified 13 additional articles, resulting in 40 included articles. Overall, 28 tools were identified, with 4 tools (PET, PET-Midwifery, DECLEI, and MidSTEP) demonstrating sufficient content validity. Only MidSTEP demonstrated sufficient structural validity.

Conclusion: Only a minority of the included tools provided sufficient evidence of content and structural validity according to the COSMIN criteria. This finding indicates a systemic need for higher standards in monitoring clinical placements and identifies tools that should be re-evaluated and supported by additional research. Limitations include the exclusion of EMBASE and gray literature and the reliance on studies that predominantly used psychometric-first rather than content-validity-first designs.

评估卫生专业教育临床学习环境的仪器测量特性:基于cosmin的系统评价。
目的:临床学习环境(CLE)是卫生专业教育的重要组成部分,为发展专业特定临床技能提供基础。本系统回顾旨在找出卫生专业教育中CLE的评估工具,并报告其测量特性。方法:本系统评价已预先注册(IDESR000098),其方案已在之前发表。符合条件的研究是同行评议的英文文章,这些文章开发并验证了评估卫生专业本科生CLE的工具,并遵循COSMIN指南对患者报告的结果测量进行系统评价。检索了多个电子数据库,包括MEDLINE、Cochrane Library、ERIC、Education Research Complete和CINAHL;研究被独立筛选,数据被提取。根据COSMIN指南采用最佳证据合成方法合成数据。结果:在标题和摘要筛选的6236篇文章中,有55篇符合全文筛选的条件。补充检索确定了13篇额外的文章,结果纳入了40篇文章。总体而言,确定了28个工具,其中4个工具(PET, PET- midwifery, DECLEI和MidSTEP)显示足够的内容效度。只有MidSTEP表现出足够的结构效度。结论:根据COSMIN标准,只有少数纳入的工具提供了足够的内容和结构效度证据。这一发现表明,在监测临床安置方面,系统需要更高的标准,并确定应该重新评估的工具,并得到更多研究的支持。局限性包括排除EMBASE和灰色文献,以及依赖主要使用心理测量优先而不是内容效度优先设计的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书