Danielle T Miller, Sarah Michael, Colin Bell, Cody H Brevik, Bonnie Kaplan, Ellie Svoboda, John Kendall
{"title":"医学培训中的物理和生物物理评估指标：文献综述。","authors":"Danielle T Miller, Sarah Michael, Colin Bell, Cody H Brevik, Bonnie Kaplan, Ellie Svoboda, John Kendall","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2024.2345269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Assessment in medical education has changed over time to measure the evolving skills required of current medical practice. Physical and biophysical markers of assessment attempt to use technology to gain insight into medical trainees' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The authors conducted a scoping review to map the literature on the use of physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The authors searched seven databases on 1 August 2022, for publications that utilized physical or biophysical markers in the assessment of medical trainees (medical students, residents, fellows, and synonymous terms used in other countries). Physical or biophysical markers included: heart rate and heart rate variability, visual tracking and attention, pupillometry, hand motion analysis, skin conductivity, salivary cortisol, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The authors mapped the relevant literature using Bloom's taxonomy of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and extracted additional data including study design, study environment, and novice vs. expert differentiation from February to June 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 6,069 unique articles, 443 met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies assessed trainees using heart rate variability (<i>n</i> = 160, 36%) followed by visual attention (<i>n</i> = 143, 32%), hand motion analysis (<i>n</i> = 67, 15%), salivary cortisol (<i>n</i> = 67, 15%), fMRI (<i>n</i> = 29, 7%), skin conductivity (<i>n</i> = 26, 6%), fNIRs (<i>n</i> = 19, 4%), and pupillometry (<i>n</i> = 16, 4%). The majority of studies (<i>n</i> = 167, 38%) analyzed non-technical skills, followed by studies that analyzed technical skills (<i>n</i> = 155, 35%), knowledge (<i>n</i> = 114, 26%), and attitudinal skills (<i>n</i> = 61, 14%). 169 studies (38%) attempted to use physical or biophysical markers to differentiate between novice and expert.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review provides a comprehensive description of the current use of physical and biophysical markers in medical education training, including the current technology and skills assessed. Additionally, while physical and biophysical markers have the potential to augment current assessment in medical education, there remains significant gaps in research surrounding reliability, validity, cost, practicality, and educational impact of implementing these markers of assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":" ","pages":"436-444"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training: A scoping review of the literature.\",\"authors\":\"Danielle T Miller, Sarah Michael, Colin Bell, Cody H Brevik, Bonnie Kaplan, Ellie Svoboda, John Kendall\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0142159X.2024.2345269\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Assessment in medical education has changed over time to measure the evolving skills required of current medical practice. Physical and biophysical markers of assessment attempt to use technology to gain insight into medical trainees' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The authors conducted a scoping review to map the literature on the use of physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The authors searched seven databases on 1 August 2022, for publications that utilized physical or biophysical markers in the assessment of medical trainees (medical students, residents, fellows, and synonymous terms used in other countries). Physical or biophysical markers included: heart rate and heart rate variability, visual tracking and attention, pupillometry, hand motion analysis, skin conductivity, salivary cortisol, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The authors mapped the relevant literature using Bloom's taxonomy of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and extracted additional data including study design, study environment, and novice vs. expert differentiation from February to June 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 6,069 unique articles, 443 met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies assessed trainees using heart rate variability (<i>n</i> = 160, 36%) followed by visual attention (<i>n</i> = 143, 32%), hand motion analysis (<i>n</i> = 67, 15%), salivary cortisol (<i>n</i> = 67, 15%), fMRI (<i>n</i> = 29, 7%), skin conductivity (<i>n</i> = 26, 6%), fNIRs (<i>n</i> = 19, 4%), and pupillometry (<i>n</i> = 16, 4%). The majority of studies (<i>n</i> = 167, 38%) analyzed non-technical skills, followed by studies that analyzed technical skills (<i>n</i> = 155, 35%), knowledge (<i>n</i> = 114, 26%), and attitudinal skills (<i>n</i> = 61, 14%). 169 studies (38%) attempted to use physical or biophysical markers to differentiate between novice and expert.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review provides a comprehensive description of the current use of physical and biophysical markers in medical education training, including the current technology and skills assessed. Additionally, while physical and biophysical markers have the potential to augment current assessment in medical education, there remains significant gaps in research surrounding reliability, validity, cost, practicality, and educational impact of implementing these markers of assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Teacher\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"436-444\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Teacher\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2345269\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2345269","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training: A scoping review of the literature.
Purpose: Assessment in medical education has changed over time to measure the evolving skills required of current medical practice. Physical and biophysical markers of assessment attempt to use technology to gain insight into medical trainees' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The authors conducted a scoping review to map the literature on the use of physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training.
Materials and methods: The authors searched seven databases on 1 August 2022, for publications that utilized physical or biophysical markers in the assessment of medical trainees (medical students, residents, fellows, and synonymous terms used in other countries). Physical or biophysical markers included: heart rate and heart rate variability, visual tracking and attention, pupillometry, hand motion analysis, skin conductivity, salivary cortisol, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The authors mapped the relevant literature using Bloom's taxonomy of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and extracted additional data including study design, study environment, and novice vs. expert differentiation from February to June 2023.
Results: Of 6,069 unique articles, 443 met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies assessed trainees using heart rate variability (n = 160, 36%) followed by visual attention (n = 143, 32%), hand motion analysis (n = 67, 15%), salivary cortisol (n = 67, 15%), fMRI (n = 29, 7%), skin conductivity (n = 26, 6%), fNIRs (n = 19, 4%), and pupillometry (n = 16, 4%). The majority of studies (n = 167, 38%) analyzed non-technical skills, followed by studies that analyzed technical skills (n = 155, 35%), knowledge (n = 114, 26%), and attitudinal skills (n = 61, 14%). 169 studies (38%) attempted to use physical or biophysical markers to differentiate between novice and expert.
Conclusion: This review provides a comprehensive description of the current use of physical and biophysical markers in medical education training, including the current technology and skills assessed. Additionally, while physical and biophysical markers have the potential to augment current assessment in medical education, there remains significant gaps in research surrounding reliability, validity, cost, practicality, and educational impact of implementing these markers of assessment.
期刊介绍：
Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
