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.
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.