COGNITIVE DIAGNOSTIC MODELING ON ASSESSMENT IN HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONS EDUCATION: A RAPID SCOPING REVIEW PROTOCOL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25110/arqsaude.v28i2.2024-11610Palavras-chave:
Educational Measurement, Medical education, Professional CompetenceResumo
Background: The fast-rising supply of healthcare professional schools imposes improvement on assessment methodologies/strategies as to ensures achievement of sufficient healthcare professional competency, professional’s own health and wellbeing, and patient safety. Ascertain which learner has or has not reached sufficiency in a specific healthcare profession must be determined. Objective: The primary objective of this article is to present the protocol of a rapid scoping review to map the literature regarding the use of Cognitive Diagnostic Modeling (CDM) on assessment in healthcare professions education. Methods: This rapid scoping review protocol is registered on Open Science Framework (OSF) and followed Joanna Brigg Institute’s (JBI) updated manual for scoping reviews, Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and adhered to STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis (STORIES) and Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) guidelines. A systematic and comprehensive search across MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, LILACS, MedEdPublish and the grey literature will be conducted without date, language and study design restrictions. This review will include studies on assessment of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical and health professions’ education. Study selection and data extraction will be undertaken by two independent authors and synthesized into various strategies as to ensure representation of the state of the art on the use of CMD in assessment of healthcare professional education. Results: This rapid scoping review is anticipated to map CMD applications in healthcare professional education, including for admissions, progress test, assessment, and clinical reasoning. Conclusion: The findings of this rapid scoping review protocol will contribute to ensure relevance and understanding of and gap identification on the use of CDM in assessment of healthcare professions education. Futhermore, they might help academic staff, administration, and researchers in healthcare education.
Referências
BRADSHAW, C. P. et al. Measuring school climate in high schools: a focus on safety, engagement, and the environment. The Journal of School Health, v. 84, n; 9, p. 593-604, set. 2014.
CAETANO, A. P. L. et al. Lições aprendidas em tempos pandêmicos: revisão de escopo sobre a atuação docente e os impactos na saúde. Arquivos de Ciências da Saúde da UNIPAR, Umuarama, v. 27, n. 8, p. 4351-4583, ago. 2023.
CAMPBELL, F. et al. Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "Big Picture" review family. Systematic Reviews, Londres, v. 12, n. 1, p. 1-8, mar. 2023.
COLLARES, C. F. Cognitive diagnostic modelling in healthcare professions education: an eye- opener. Advances In Health Sciences Education, Boston, v. 27, n. 2, p. 427-40, maio 2022.
DOBBINS, M. Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, 2017.
GARRITTY, C. et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Oxford, v. 130, n. 1, p. 13-22, fev. 2021.
GORDON, M.; GIBBS, T. STORIES statement: publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis. BMC Medicine, Londres, 2014, v. 12, n. 1, p. 1-9, set. 2014.
HAMMICK, M.; DORNAN, T.; STEINERT, Y. Conducting a best evidence systematic review. Part 1: From idea to data coding. BEME Guide No. 13. Medical Teacher, Londres, v. 32, n. 1, p. 3-15, jan. 2010.
HARTLING, L. Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child- relevant reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, Londres, v. 17, n. 1, p. 1-11, abr. 2017.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY. How generative AI is reshaping education. Cambridge: Harvard Business Publishing Education, 2024.
KHANGURA, S. et al. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, Londres, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-9, fev. 2012.
LEVA, D.; Colquhoun, H.; O'BRIEN, K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, Londres, v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-9, set. 2010.
LUNNY, C. et al. Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, Londres, v. 21, n. 1, p. 1-14, jul. 2021.
MARSHALL, I. J. et al. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Oxford, v. 109, n. 1, p. 30-41, maio 2019.
MAUÉS, V. M. S. et al. Discussions on meaningful learning and health education: an integrative review. Arquivos de Ciências da Saúde da UNIPAR, Umuarama, v. 27, n. 5, p. 3183-3197, maio 2023.
MOYA, B. et al. Academic Integrity and artificial intelligence in higher education contexts: a rapid scoping review protocol. Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity, Manitoba, v. 5, n. 2, p. 59-75, jan. 2023.
MUNN, Z. et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, Londres, v. 18, n. 1, p. 1-7, nov. 2018.
PETERS, M. D. J. et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis, Filadélfia, v. 20, n. 4, p. 953-968, abr. 2022.
PETERS, M. D. J. et al. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: AROMATARIS, E.; MUNN, Z. (org.). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute, 2020. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12. Acesso em: 18 mov. 2024.
RUPP, A. A.; TEMPLIN, J. L. Unique characteristics of diagnostic classification models: a comprehensive review of the current state-of-the-art. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, Filadélpia, v. 6, n. 4, p. 219-262, fev. 2008.
SCHAUBER, S. K.; HECHT, M.; NOUNS, Z. M. Why assessment in medical education needs a solid foundation in modern test theory. Advances In Health Sciences Education, Boston, v. 23, n. 1, p. 217-232, mar. 2018.
SCHREURS, S. et al. Opening the black box of selection. Advances In Health Sciences Education, Boston, v. 25 , n. 2, p. 363-382, maio 2020.
SRIHARAN, A. et al. Occupational stress, burnout, and depression in women in healthcare during COVID-19 pandemic: rapid scoping review. Frontiers in Global Women's Health, Lausanne, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-8, nov. 2020.
TRICCO, A. C. et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, Londres, v. 13, n. 1, p. 1-15, set. 2015.
VERAS, M. et al. A rapid review protocol of physiotherapy and occupational therapy telerehabilitation to inform ethical and equity concerns. Digital Health, Thousand Oaks, v. 10, n. 1, p. 1-9, jul. 2024.
VON DAVIE, M.; LEE, Y. S. Handbook of diagnostic classification models: models and model extensions, applications, software packages. Berlim: Springer Cham, 2019.
WILLIAMSON, J. Cognitive diagnostic models and how they can be useful. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press & Assessment, 2023.
WOLLSCHEID, S.; TRIPNEY J. Rapid reviews as an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in education. London Review of Education, Londres, v. 19, n. 1, p. 1-17, jan. 2021.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2024 Arquivos de Ciências da Saúde da UNIPAR
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Os Direitos Autorais para artigos publicados são de direito da revista. Em virtude da aparecerem nesta revista de acesso público, os artigos são de uso gratuito, com Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
A revista se reserva o direito de efetuar, nos originais, alterações de ordem normativa, ortográfica e gramatical, com vistas a manter o padrão culto da língua e a credibilidade do veículo. Respeitará, no entanto, o estilo de escrever dos autores.
Alterações, correções ou sugestões de ordem conceitual serão encaminhadas aos autores, quando necessário. Nesses casos, os artigos, depois de adequados, deverão ser submetidos a nova apreciação.
As opiniões emitidas pelos autores dos artigos são de sua exclusiva responsabilidade.
