Search

Context Authors have questioned the degree to which medical education research informs practice and advances the science of medical education. Objective This study aims to propose a framework for classifying the purposes of education research and to quantify the frequencies of purposes among medical education experiments. Methods We looked at articles published in 2003 and 2004 in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, American Journal of Surgery, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Medical Education and Teaching and Learning in Medicine (1459 articles). From the 185 articles describing education experiments, a random sample of 110 was selected. The purpose of each study was classified as description (‘What was done?’), justification (‘Did it work?’) or clarification (‘Why or how did it work?’). Educational topics were identified inductively and each study was classified accordingly. Results Of the 105 articles suitable for review, 75 (72%) were justification studies, 17 (16%) were description studies, and 13 (12%) were clarification studies. Experimental studies of assessment methods (5/6, 83%) and interventions aimed at knowledge and attitudes (5/28, 18%) were more likely to be clarification studies than were studies addressing other educational topics (< 8%). Conclusions Clarification studies are uncommon in experimental studies in medical education. Studies with this purpose (i.e. studies asking: ‘How and why does it work?’) are needed to deepen our understanding and advance the art and science of medical education. We hope that this framework stimulates education scholars to reflect on the purpose of their inquiry and the research questions they ask, and to strive to ask more clarification questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Determine the prevalence of essential elements of reporting in experimental studies in medical education. Design Systematic review. Data Sources Articles published in 2003 and 2004 in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, American Journal of Surgery, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Medical Education, and Teaching and Learning in Medicine. Review Methods Articles describing education experiments, including evaluation studies with experimental designs, were identified ( n = 185) by reviewing titles and abstracts. A random sample ( n = 110) was selected for full review. The full text of each article was evaluated for the presence of guideline-based features of quality reporting: a critical literature review, conceptual framework, statement of study intent (e.g. aim, research question, or hypothesis), statement of study design, definition of main intervention and comparison intervention or control group, and consideration of human subject rights. Results Of the 105 articles suitable for review, 47 (45%) contained a critical literature review and 58 (55%) presented a conceptual framework. A statement of study intent was present in 80 articles (76%), among which the independent and dependent variables were operationally defined in 38 (47%) and 26 articles (32%), respectively. A total of 17 articles (16%) contained an explicit study design statement. Among the 48 studies with a comparison group, 35 (73%) clearly defined the comparison intervention or control group. Institutional review board approval or participant consent was reported in 44 articles (42%). Conclusions The quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education was generally poor. Criteria are proposed as a starting point for establishing reporting standards for medical education research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented by the authors of the article "Threats to validity in the use and interpretation of script concordance test scores"in response to the article "Scoring the scrip concordance test: not a black and white issue" by S. Lunbarsky, R. Gagnon, and B. Charlin from a 2013 issue.