Correction: Assessing professional identity formation (PIF) amongst medical students in Oncology and Palliative Medicine postings: a SEBA guided scoping review
Ethical Framework
Number of articles employing it and references in brackets
Korthagen’s level of change model
One [52]
Barnhoorn’s multi-level professionalism framework
One [79],
Goldie’s social psychological levels of analysis
Eight [51, 52, 62, 78, 80-83]
Kegan’s constructive development theory
Four [63, 78, 81, 82]
Pratt’s theory on professional identity formation
Three [16, 62, 63]
Wald’s theory on professional identity formation
Five [65, 82, 84-86]
Cruess et al’s schematic representations of professional identity formation and socialization
Nine [17, 52, 62, 84, 87-91]
Krishna’s Ring Theory of Personhood
Three [13, 25, 27]
Principles
Information considered (in the context of theories)
Methods of assessment
Longitudinal assessments [5, 28, 63, 78, 79, 85, 88, 90, 92-103]
Personal [13, 17, 25, 27, 51, 52, 60, 65, 66, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 89, 91], practical [13, 66, 79, 88], clinical [25, 27, 51, 60, 65, 82, 83, 87-89, 91], environmental [13, 16, 25, 27, 51, 60, 63, 65, 78, 79, 82, 83, 87], academic [25, 82], research [25, 61], systems-based [13, 60, 82, 87, 88, 90];
summative assessments [104]
Multidimensional approach [87, 97, 104, 105]
the medical student’s social [27, 60, 65, 66, 80], personal [13, 16, 17, 25, 27, 51-53, 63, 66, 82, 87, 89], demographic, contextual, academic, research, clinical, and professional values [17, 62, 63, 65, 66, 78-82, 84, 87-91], their beliefs [13, 16, 25, 27, 51-53, 60-62, 65, 78, 79, 81-83], principles [27, 51, 60, 62, 65, 81, 87, 89], experiences [13, 16, 25, 27, 51, 53, 60-63, 65, 66, 79, 81-83, 89-91], competencies [17, 51, 52, 62, 63, 66, 80, 82, 84, 87-89], and goals [13, 17, 25, 27, 51, 53, 82, 83, 89, 90]
formative assessments [63, 87, 88, 96]
Multimodal approach to assessing PIF [5, 17, 28, 63, 87, 91, 95, 96, 100, 104, 106-111]
environmental conditions, the requirements [87], and influences [62, 66, 78, 89] within the practice setting
use of mixed methods [17, 28, 79, 81, 100, 103, 106, 107, 112-114].
Site-specific assessments [107, 113, 115]
the impact of the formal [16, 51, 52, 65, 78, 79, 82, 87], informal [16, 65, 78, 79, 82, 83, 87], and hidden curriculum [16, 52, 65, 66, 78, 79, 81, 82, 87]
Assessments at multiple time points [78, 81, 85, 92, 107, 113, 114]
the program and practice expectations [87, 88] on conduct, competencies, attitudes, and goal [13, 51]
Use of multiple assessors [28, 82, 85, 87, 100, 104, 106, 107, 110, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117]
the medical student’s ethical position [63, 82, 100, 109, 112, 113, 116, 118-121]
The medical student’s moral position [81, 84, 87, 95, 100, 112, 118, 119]
The medical student’s professional position [52, 63, 81, 82, 90, 91, 98-102, 106, 108, 109, 111-113, 122]
The medical student’s values, beliefs and principles
- If specific to the medical student: [16, 17, 25, 27, 51-53, 62, 63, 65, 66, 78-82, 84, 87, 88, 90, 91]
- If not: [13, 60, 61]
The medical student’s actions, attitudes [63], conduct, reflective practice [63] and support mechanisms [63] over time
the demographical [84], historical [78], experiential [63, 90] and environmental factors [16, 25, 51, 52, 63, 65, 78, 82, 90] influencing concepts of identity
留言 (0)