Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol

Lucy Alpine; Emer Barrett; Julie Broderick; David Mockler; Anne O'Connor

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13669.3

Home Browse Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Revised

Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol

[version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Lucy Alpine ¹, Emer Barrett¹, Julie Broderick¹, David Mockler², Anne O'Connor³

Lucy Alpine ¹, Emer Barrett¹, [...] Julie Broderick¹, David Mockler², Anne O'Connor³

PUBLISHED 06 May 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, Dublin, D08W9RT, Ireland
² John Sterne Library, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, Dublin, D08W9RT, Ireland
³ Munster Physiotherapy Clinic, Limerick, V94R9VW, Ireland

Lucy Alpine
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Emer Barrett
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Julie Broderick
Roles: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

David Mockler
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization

Anne O'Connor
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

Performance-based assessment (PBA) is a complex process undertaken in the workplace by healthcare practitioners known as clinical educators, who assist universities in determining health professional students’ readiness for independent practice. Preparing healthcare professionals for PBA is considered essential to ensuring the quality of the assessment process in the clinical learning environment. A preliminary search of the literature indicated a paucity of research guiding the development of education programmes that support practice educators to understand and implement PBA.

Objective

The aim of this scoping review is to investigate and describe education programmes delivered to allied health and nursing clinical educators, to develop PBA knowledge and skills.

Methods

This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for conducting scoping reviews. Electronic databases relevant to this research topic will be searched including, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science and CINAHL and other targeted databases for grey literature. Studies that include PBA as the main focus or a component of the education programmes, of any format, delivered to clinical educators in allied health and nursing will be included. Studies may report the design and/or implementation and/or evaluation of PBA education programmes. Relevant English language publications will be sought from January 2000 to October 2022. Two reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts against the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and publications deemed relevant will be eligible for full text screening, confirming appropriateness for inclusion in the scoping review. Data will be charted to create a table of the results, supported a by narrative summary of the findings in line with the review objectives.

Keywords

performance-based assessment, education/training programmes, clinical educators

Corresponding author: Lucy Alpine

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2025 Alpine L et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Alpine L, Barrett E, Broderick J et al. Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2025, 6:11 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13669.3) First published: 07 Feb 2023, 6:11 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13669.1) Latest published: 06 May 2025, 6:11 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13669.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

This revised version provides a restructured ‘Introduction’ section to enhance the transparency of the background. Supplementary sentences have been added to the rationale section, which summarise the reasons for scoping review and provide a clearer connection to the research question. GreyLit has been removed from the protocol as it was not available when the Grey literature search was carried out.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Lindy L. McAllister
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Yvonne Finn
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Susanne Friis Søndergaard

Introduction

Background

Assessment of health professional students during work-based placements, also known as performance-based assessment (PBA), refers to the appraisal process conducted during clinical placements, and establishes students’ readiness for independent professional practice¹. PBA determines health professional competence², providing evidence of students’ abilities to care for patients in a real, uncontrolled clinical learning environment³. This assessment process aligns with effective outcome-based education, where students are required to achieve standardised professional competencies in order to graduate as competent clinicians². Preliminary searches of relevant literature highlighted a paucity of evidence-based education programmes for clinical educators. Clinical educators are healthcare practitioners primarily involved in service delivery, who undertake student supervision and PBA in the workplace⁴. Titles used to describe health professionals who undertake this education role include practice educator, preceptor, mentor, fieldwork educator, clinical teacher and clinical educator^5–8. For consistency, the term ‘clinical educator’ will be used throughout this protocol.

The challenges and complexities of Performance-Based Assessment

Assessment in the clinical environment is a complex process open to many challenges and influenced by several factors including the assessor, the clinical learning environment and the assessment task^9–11. Considerable responsibility is placed on these clinicians, as PBA often determines progression through the programme and may contribute significantly to the overall grade awarded to the student^12,13. Dynamics impacting PBA relating to the assessors may include, variation in interpretation of the task and how it is judged¹⁴, differences in understanding of the assessment criteria¹⁵, and navigating the complex student-clinician relationship, where assessors act as both mentor and examiner^9,14. Other relevant influences may include potential lack of commitment to the assessment process by clinical educators due to it been seen as a non-service related activity¹⁶, and cognitive or cultural biases^10,14. In the clinical learning environment, issues such as time pressures¹⁷, the multiple demanding roles of the clinician¹ and the uncertain nature of the clinical setting, often presenting complex learning opportunities¹⁰, also present challenges. Assessment tasks may be viewed as problematic, requiring assessors to convert an observed performance into a numerical score^1,18, with the added challenge of precise recall of a performance, due to the time lapse between observation and actual grading¹⁸. Furthermore, these difficulties may be heightened when a clinical educator is supervising and grading an underperforming student¹⁹.

Current literature in this area highlights challenges with PBA, citing inter and intra-rater reliability and knowledge of assessment processes as the greatest difficulties^9,10,20,21. Clinical educators who are deficient in knowledge, skills and confidence for this role, may potentially compromise the PBA decision-making process, thereby casting doubt on a graduate’s credentials as a safe competent practitioner. Professional development to support clinical educators to carry out their role as assessors is critical to ensure the quality of work-based education and assessment^6,9,12. Thus, exploring the current opportunities available for health professionals to address their educational needs in this area is most important^6,22,23.

Application of Performance-Based Assessment in healthcare professional education

The majority of research related to PBA education for health-care professional is situated in medical education^17,24,25, with preliminary searches suggesting limited studies for allied health professions and nursing^26–29. In medicine, the literature on PBA spans both pre-qualification and post qualification programmes, where the implementation of PBA often differs from that applied in allied heath/nursing education. During medical rotations, students are generally under the supervision of clinical educators for short periods of time^30,31, and commonly use assessment tools such as the Mini-Clinical Examination Exercise (Mini-CEX) and Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS), applying only a discrete number of assessment criteria^3,4,32,33. Clinical performance is evaluated at distinct pre-arranged timepoints, often planned or identified by the student, and verbal and/or written feedback is not always included^34,35. These assessment approaches and tools may not provide an integrated view of overall patient management by the student or reflect care provided over time^31,32.

In nursing and allied health education, PBA is generally applied as a continuous assessment process over a prolonged period of time, for example 6 to 12 weeks^36,37. Students are often supervised by one/two educators for the duration of the placement and work closely together under their supervision³⁶. PBA generally consists of multiple daily observations of the student, which can include reviewing student’s assessments and clinical reasoning documentation, together with observation of their professional and communication skills^38,39. PBA tools are frequently used for both formative and summative feedback, with written feedback informing the dialogue regarding the students’ performance⁴⁰. Differences in supervision and assessment practices may suggest educational needs for clinical educators are also different, depending on how the PBA assessment is applied and their clinical learning environment.

Education programmes for Performance-Based Assessment

There is some evidence to suggest that universities provide education programmes to induct new practice educators into their role, and more advanced programmes for experienced educators, to grow their teaching and assessment skills^{7,11,23,26,41}. Programmes are delivered mainly through formal instructional approaches such as university-based workshops or online units, which may include education on implementing PBA^11,26,41,42. However, certification requirements for these programmes are inconsistent and no specific guidance in relation to the format, content or frequency of PBA education is available^20,43,44. A preliminary review of the research suggests similar education approaches are used across healthcare education programmes. In medicine, studies frequently use interactive workshops and video vignette of students’ clinical performances based on teaching approaches such as ‘Performance Dimension Training’ or ‘Frame of Reference’ training^17,24,25. These studies have shown a positive impact on participants assessment confidence, skills and knowledge, with more variable success for grading accuracy and reliability. A small number of recent allied health studies using similar approaches, highlighted the benefits of interactive dialogue between assessors as part of the decision-making process, resulting in more transparent assessment processes, and also improved rating accuracy of assessors^11,45. A preliminary search identified one systematic review specifically associated with professional development of clinical educators. Milne et al. (2011) reviewed evidence-based training for clinical educators in mental health professions, identifying 20 different topics provided in education programmes, however assessment was not explicitly reported as a component of training in any of these studies²⁶. A further systematic review addressing the issues and concerns related to learning and assessment in the clinical learning environment²³, and a more recent scoping review exploring the factors needed to support clinical educators in the workplace⁴⁶, do not specifically addresses PBA education, however both highlight the requirement for professional development in assessment practices. A search for existing scoping and systematic review protocols related to education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health or nursing professionals was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Best Evidence Medical Education, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Evidence Synthesis and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in July 2022, producing no protocols on this topic.

Rationale for a Scoping Review

Performance-Based Assessment undertaken by healthcare professionals in the workplace environment is complex and challenging. There is mounting pressure on universities from accreditation and regulatory bodies to ensure clinical educators are fit for their role, including the provision of credible and defensible PBA evaluations to safeguard the public. Preparing clinical educators to implement PBA and develop expertise as an assessor requires on-going education and experience^46,47. In addition, considerable time resources are invested by healthcare managers releasing clinical educators to undertake PBA education, placing a responsibility on the universities to provide appropriate education and training. Therefore, it is a timely and essential task to investigate the breath and scope of existing literature regarding the education provided to clinical educators to deliver PBA. The aim of this scoping review is to investigate and describe education programmes delivered to allied health and nursing clinical educators, to develop PBA knowledge and skills.

Methods

This proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review guidelines⁴⁸, informed by the Arskey and O’Malley framework⁴⁹, with consideration of the recommendations from Levac et al.,⁵⁰, Duadt et al.,⁵¹ and Peters et al., 2022⁵².

Rationale for scoping review

Scoping reviews are an effective method to establish the extent of the available research on a particular topic by exploring diverse international research sources, clarifying key concepts and identifying gaps in the knowledge on a specific research topic^51,53. In addition, given the limited yield of literature from the initial search and investigative nature of this research, a scoping review is well positioned to identify any gaps in the research.

Research question, objectives and purpose

This study protocol will address the following question: what is known about education programmes used to develop PBA knowledge and skills for clinical educators in allied health and nursing?

The review objectives are as follows:

To explore the extent, range and nature of the literature on PBA education programmes provided to allied health and nursing professionals
To chart specific characteristics related to the context, target population, format, aim, instructional methods/teaching strategies, content, pedagogical approaches, evaluation and key findings or educational impact of these programmes
To collate, describe and summarise the available evidence on PBA education programmes, and identify any gaps in the existing research

The purpose of the review is to explore and describe education programmes delivered to allied health and nursing clinical educators, to develop PBA knowledge and skills.

Inclusion criteria

The search strategy was constructed using the Population-Concept-Context framework to guide the eligibility criteria. An overview of the inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

•  Studies that report the design and/or implementation and/or
evaluation of PBA education programmes for allied health and
nursing clinical educators supervising pre-qualification dietetic,
occupational therapy, nursing, optometry, orthoptic, physiotherapy,
podiatry, psychology, radiography, radiation therapy, social workers
and speech and language therapy students
•  Qualitative, quantitative, primary or mixed methods research
studies of any design
•  Opinion pieces, reviews, conference abstracts that comment on PBA
empirical research or have PBA education as the main focus
•  Grey literature retrieved from Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Open
Grey
•  Full text papers or reports in the English language
•  Published after 1^st January 2000 to the 30^th of October 2022

•  Professional development programmes targeting university
academic staff or allied health professionals other than
dietitians, occupational therapists, nursing, optometrists,
orthoptists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychologists,
radiographers, radiation therapists, social workers and
speech and language therapists
•  Professional development programmes relating to clinical
education that do not include a PBA component
•  General information regarding PBA on websites of
individual allied health or nursing professional bodies,
professional regulators, government education
departments
•  Research papers or grey literature not written in English

Participants

The primary population of this review are clinical educators, described as clinicians who supervise pre-qualification students on clinical placements. Clinical educators may work in a part-time or full-time capacity and be employed across a wide range of workplaces providing healthcare to service users. This scoping review will consider studies that include clinical educators from the following health and social work professions: dietitians, occupational therapists, nursing, optometrists, orthoptists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychologists, radiographers, radiation therapists, social workers and speech and language therapists. Professions identified include those awarded a recognised professional entry-level qualification from universities and have work-based placements as an integral part of their programmes.

Concept

This scoping review is designed to explore PBA education programmes provided to allied health and nursing clinical educators who supervise pre-qualification students. Medical education programmes were not included as their assessment practice in clinical education differ considerably from allied health and nursing. These programmes may be designed, developed and delivered by academics with a practice education remit or dedicated discipline specific practice education staff. Education programmes must include PBA as the main focus or as a component of a programme, giving a clear description of the design and/or implementation and/or evaluation of the assessment aspect. All instructional methods or teaching strategies for programme delivery will be considered and may include but are not limited to, interactive workshops, didactic lectures, structured reflection opportunities, role-play or other simulation approaches, workplace observational coaching or other methods. Evaluation outcomes for the programmes will be pursued.

Context

PBA education programmes may be based in the university as a face-to-face event, or as a university e-learning virtual programme or facilitated in a clinical setting. Programmes may also vary in duration from single interventions completed over a number of hours or a single day, to more longitudinal programmes delivered over a defined period of time. Literature will be searched from the year 2000 recognising the growth in research and development in the area of work-based assessment in recent decades. There will be no limits on geographical location.

Search strategy

A professional librarian will be consulted to assist with developing comprehensive search strategies to identify relevant literature from a broad range of sources including electronic databases, reference lists and grey literature. Initial searches of EMBASE and PUBMED databases were undertaken in July 2022 to identify studies relevant to the research area. Keywords and index terms of the relevant studies were then used to create search strategies. The final EMBASE search strategy is outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Search strategy for EMBASE.

Search	Query
S1	(('performance based' OR 'workplace based' OR 'competency based' OR 'performance based') NEAR/3 assess*):ti,ab,kw
S2	('domains of competence' OR 'Competency-Based Education' OR 'Competency-Based assessment' OR 'competency- based portfolio' OR ‘assessment of competence’ OR 'frame of reference training' OR 'performance dimension training' OR 'behaviour observation training'):ti,ab,kw
S3	#1 OR #2
S4	'allied health student'/exp OR 'allied health education'/exp
S5	('allied health' NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S6	('audiology'/exp AND ('clinical competence'/exp AND 'curriculum'/exp AND 'education'/exp)) OR 'audiology student'/exp
S7	(audiol* NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S8	('dietetics'/exp AND ('clinical competence'/exp AND 'curriculum'/exp AND 'education'/exp)) OR 'dietetics education'/exp OR 'dietetics student'/exp
S9	((dietitian* OR dietetic) NEAR/3 (educat OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)): ti,ab,kw
S10	'nursing'/exp OR 'nursing student'/exp OR 'nursing education'/exp OR 'nursing practice'/exp
S11	(Nurs* NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S12	'occupational therapy'/exp OR 'occupational therapy student'/exp OR 'occupational therapy education'/exp OR 'occupational therapy practice'/exp
S13	('occupational therap' NEAR/3 (educat OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)): ti,ab,kw
S14	(('optometry'/exp OR 'orthoptics'/exp) AND ('student'/exp OR 'education'/exp OR 'learning'/exp OR 'clinical education'/exp)) OR 'optometry education'/exp
S15	((Optometr* OR orthoptics) NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S16	'physiotherapy'/exp OR 'physical therapy student'/exp OR 'physical therapy education'/exp OR 'physiotherapy practice'/exp
S17	((‘physical therap’ OR physiotherap) NEAR/3 (educat OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S18	('podiatry'/exp AND ('student'/exp OR 'education'/exp OR 'learning'/exp OR 'clinical education'/exp)) OR 'podiatry education'/exp
S19	(podiatr* NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S20	(('psychology'/exp OR 'psychologist'/exp) AND ('student'/exp OR 'education'/exp OR 'learning'/exp OR 'clinical education'/exp)) OR 'psychology student'/exp OR 'psychology education'/exp
S21	(Psycholog* NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S22	'radiotherapy'/exp AND ('student'/exp OR 'education'/exp OR 'learning'/exp OR 'clinical education'/exp)
S23	((Radiotherap* OR 'radation therap') NEAR/3 (educat OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S24	'Radiography'/exp AND ('student'/exp OR 'education'/exp OR 'learning'/exp OR 'clinical education'/exp)
S25	(Radiograph* NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S26	(('social work'/exp OR 'social worker'/exp OR 'social work practice'/exp) AND ('student'/exp OR 'education'/exp OR 'learning'/exp OR 'clinical education'/exp)) OR 'social work student'/exp
S27	(('social work' OR 'social care work') NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S28	('speech language pathologist'/exp OR 'speech and language rehabilitation'/exp) AND ('student'/exp OR 'education'/exp OR 'learning'/exp OR 'clinical education'/exp)
S29	(('speech language' OR 'speech and language' OR 'speech & language') NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S30	#4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR #28 OR #29
S31	'program development'/exp OR 'curriculum development'/exp OR 'course content'/exp OR 'education program'/exp OR 'tertiary education'/exp OR 'vocational education'/exp OR 'allied health education'/exp OR 'occupational therapy education'/exp OR 'physical therapy education'/exp OR 'teacher training'/exp OR 'program evaluation'/de
S32	((Program OR curricul* OR pilot) NEAR/3 (develop OR evaluat* OR design* OR create* OR initiate*)):ti,ab,kw
S33	((‘allied health’ OR ‘occupational therap’ OR ‘physical therap’ OR physiotherap OR dietitian* OR dietetic* OR ‘speech and language’) NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S34	((‘allied health’ OR ‘occupational therap’ OR ‘physical therap’ OR physiotherap* OR dietitian* OR dietetic* OR ‘speech and language’) NEAR/3 (educat* OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S35	‘Train the trainer*’:ti,ab,kw
S36	((Student OR undergraduate* OR postgraduate) NEAR/3 (educat OR curricul* OR train* OR ‘clinical skill’ OR competenc OR evaluat* OR assess*)):ti,ab,kw
S37	((Teacher* OR instructor* OR clinician* OR mentor* OR faculty OR educator) NEAR/3 (train OR develop* OR skill* OR tool*)):ti,ab,kw
S38	#31 OR #32 OR #33 OR #34 OR #35 OR #36 OR #37
S39	#3 AND #30 AND #38

A comprehensive search will be undertaken to identify relevant publications in the following databases: EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science and CINAHL. Bibliographies of relevant publications and review articles will be examined for further citations and checked for suitability using the eligibility criteria. A grey literature search will be undertaken using databases identified in the inclusion criteria and the Grey literature search strategy (see Extended data⁵⁴). Websites of individual professional bodies, universities, professional regulator or government education departments will not be searched as this is beyond the resources of this research project, considering the breath of professions included in the review. The search will be iterative and any relevant additional terms, concepts or literature sources, emerging during the search, screening or selection processes, may be added to the search strategy as the review progresses⁵². Only publications in the English language will be included.

Sources of evidence selection

Following the searches, appropriate publications will be imported into Covidence, and any duplicates not already detected will be removed. To ensure reliability in selection, two reviewers will independently screen the title and abstract of a random sample of 20 retrieved articles, to ensure consistency between the reviewers regarding the eligibility criteria⁵². All records will then be screened by two reviewers, with titles and abstracts appraised against the inclusion/exclusion criteria⁵¹. Uncertainties or disputes related to the study selection will be discussed at scheduled meetings at the beginning, midpoint and final stages of the abstract review process⁵⁰. Where an inclusion or exclusion decision cannot be agreed from the title or abstract, the full article will be screened. Publications deemed appropriate will be eligible for full text screening, by the two independent reviewers, confirming appropriateness for inclusion in the scoping review. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion and consensus with a third reviewer.

Data extraction

Covidence will be used to manage citations and perform data extraction based on pre-determined data characteristics listed below. Initially, five to ten identified papers will be piloted by two reviewers to ensure agreement on data extraction characteristics and that the data fields are consistent with the research question⁵⁰. During the review process, data fields may be further refined with any changes reported in the final review^49,55. Any questions will be resolved by discussion to reach consensus. Where ambiguity or omissions exist, study authors will be contacted for further details. Data will be extracted by a single review author and verified by a second reviewer. As the purpose of this scoping review is focused on describing sources of evidence on a specific research topic, a risk of bias for source of evidence will not be included^49,52.

The following fields will be extracted from the included studies:

1. Author
2. Year of publication
3. Country of study
4. Healthcare profession
5. Size of study population
6. Format/type of programme
7. Location and duration of progamme
8. Overall aim or focus of the programme
9. Instructional methods/teaching strategies
10. Content of programme
11. Theoretical/conceptual framework/pedagogies under-pinning teaching methods
12. Evaluation methods
13. Key findings/educational impact

Data analysis and presentations

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review (PRIMSA-ScR) checklist will be followed for organisation of information and reporting⁵⁶. A PRISMA flow diagram will be used to report the results of the literature search. This will include numbers of articles imported, duplicates identified, titles and abstracts screened, irrelevant studies removed, rationale for exclusion of articles and final full-text studies included for review⁵⁷. To maintain transparency, any changes from the protocol will be reported in the scoping review report⁵². All data extracted will be mapped into tabular format, based on descriptive headings in the data extraction form, and accompanied by a narrative summary of the results in line with the review objectives. A comparison of allied health/nursing and medicine PBA education programmes will be included in the discussion.

Study status

At the time of publication of this review protocol, title and abstract screening were underway.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Extended data

Open Science Framework: Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol, https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sjxhf⁵⁴

This project contains the following extended data:

- Grey literature search strategy
- PRISMA-ScR checklist

Acknowledgements

An earlier version (preprint) of this article can be found on Open Science Framework: ‘Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol’ (https://osf.io/sjxhf/).

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Meyer IS, Louw A, Ernstzen D: Perceptions of physiotherapy clinical educators' dual roles as mentors and assessors: influence on teaching-learning relationships. S Afr J Physiother. 2019; 75(1): 468. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Epstein RM, Hundert EM: Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA. 2002; 287(2): 226–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Holmboe ES, Kogan JR: Observation in medical education: time for a broader conversation? Fam Syst Health. 2018; 36(1): 17–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. O'Connor A, Cantillon P, Parker M, et al.: Juggling roles and generating solutions; practice-based educators' perceptions of performance-based assessment of physiotherapy students. Physiotherapy. 2019; 105(4): 446–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. O'Brien AT, McNeil K, Dawson A: The student experience of clinical supervision across health disciplines - Perspectives and remedies to enhance clinical placement. Nurse Educ Pract. 2019; 34: 48–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Quigley D, Loftus L, McGuire A, et al.: An optimal environment for placement learning: listening to the voices of speech and language therapy students. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2020; 55(4): 506–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. McCarthy B, Murphy S: Preceptors' experiences of clinically educating and assessing undergraduate nursing students: an Irish context. J Nurs Manag. 2010; 18(2): 234–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Seale J, Gallagher C, Grisbrooke J: Fieldwork educator training: design and evaluation of an educational package. Br J Occup Ther. 1996; 59(11): 529–34. Publisher Full Text
9. Seldomridge LA, Walsh CM: Waging the war on clinical grade inflation: the ongoing quest. Nurse Educ. 2018; 43(4): 178–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Govaerts M, van der Vleuten CP: Validity in work-based assessment: expanding our horizons. Med Educ. 2013; 47(12): 1164–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Alpine LM, O'Connor A, McGuinness M, et al.: Performance-based assessment during clinical placement: cross-sectional investigation of a training workshop for practice educators. Nurs Health Sci. 2021; 23(1): 113–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Heaslip V, Scammell JM: Failing underperforming students: the role of grading in practice assessment. Nurse Educ Pract. 2012; 12(2): 95–100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. O'Connor A, Cantillon P, McGarr O, et al.: Navigating the system: physiotherapy student perceptions of performance-based assessment. Med Teach. 2018; 40(9): 928–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Yeates P, O'Neill P, Mann K, et al.: Seeing the same thing differently: mechanisms that contribute to assessor differences in directly-observed performance assessments. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013; 18(3): 325–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Kilgour AJ: Assessment of competency in radiography students — a new approach. Radiographer. 2011; 58(3): 32–7. Publisher Full Text
16. Cross V, Hicks C, Barwell F: Exploring the gap between evidence and judgement: using video vignettes for practice-based assessment of physiotherapy undergraduates. Assess Eval High Educ. 2001; 26(3): 189–212. Publisher Full Text
17. Ogden PE, Edwards J, Howell M, et al.: The effect of two different faculty development interventions on third-year clerkship performance evaluations. Fam Med. 2008; 40(5): 333–8. PubMed Abstract
18. Gingerich A, Regehr G, Eva KW: Rater-based assessments as social judgments: rethinking the etiology of rater errors. Acad Med. 2011; 86(10 Suppl): S1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Duffy K, Hardicre J: Supporting failing students in practice. 1: Assessment. Nurs Times. 2007; 103(47): 28–9. PubMed Abstract
20. Dudding CC, McCready V, Nunez LM, et al.: Clinical supervision in speech-language pathology and audiology in the United States: development of a professional specialty. Clin Superv. 2017; 36(2): 161–81. Publisher Full Text
21. Reubenson A, Ng L, Gucciardi DF: The Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice tool provides informative assessments of clinical and professional dimensions of student performance in undergraduate placements: a longitudinal validity and reliability study. J Physiother. 2020; 66(2): 113–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Newstead C, Johnston CL, Nisbet G, et al.: Physiotherapy clinical education in Australia: an exploration of clinical educator characteristics, confidence and training requirements. Aust Health Rev. 2019; 43(6): 696–705. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Wu XV, Enskär K, Pua LH, et al.: Clinical nurse leaders' and academics' perspectives in clinical assessment of final-year nursing students: a qualitative study. Nurs Health Sci. 2017; 19(3): 287–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, Huot SJ: Effects of training in direct observation of medical residents' clinical competence: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140(11): 874–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Kogan JR, Conforti LN, Bernabeo E, et al.: How faculty members experience workplace-based assessment rater training: a qualitative study. Med Educ. 2015; 49(7): 692–708. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Milne DL, Sheikh AI, Pattison S, et al.: Evidence-based training for clinical supervisors: a systematic review of 11 controlled studies. Clin Superv. 2011; 30(1): 53–71. Publisher Full Text
27. Steinert Y, Mann K, Anderson B, et al.: A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: a 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40. Med Teach. 2016; 38(8): 769–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Mikkonen K, Kuivila HM, Sjögren T, et al.: Social, health care and rehabilitation educators' competence in professional education-Empirical testing of a model. Health Soc Care Community. 2022; 30(1): e75–e85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Harvey S, Spurr P, Sidebotham M, et al.: Describing and evaluating a foundational education/training program preparing nurses, midwives and other helping professionals as supervisors of clinical supervision using the Role Development Model. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020; 42: 102671. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Hemmer PA, Dadekian GA, Terndrup C, et al.: Regular formal evaluation sessions are effective as frame-of-reference training for faculty evaluators of clerkship medical students. J Gen Intern Med. 2015; 30(9): 1313–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
31. Hanson JL, Rosenberg AA, Lane JL: Narrative descriptions should replace grades and numerical ratings for clinical performance in medical education in the United States. Front Psychol. 2013; 4: 668. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
32. Regehr G, Eva K, Ginsburg S, et al.: Assessment in postgraduate medical education: trends and issues in assessment in the workplace. 2011. Reference Source
33. Walsh E, Foley T, Sinnott C, et al.: Developing and piloting a resource for training assessors in use of the Mini-CEX (Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise). Educ Prim Care. 2017; 28(4): 243–245. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Kogan JR, Hatala R, Hauer KE, et al.: Guidelines: the do's, don'ts and don't knows of direct observation of clinical skills in medical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2017; 6(5): 286–305. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
35. Swanberg M, Woodson-Smith S, Pangaro L, et al.: Factors and interactions influencing direct observation: a literature review guided by activity theory. Teach Learn Med. 2022; 34(2): 155–166. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Barrett EM, Belton A, Alpine LM: Supervision models in physiotherapy practice education: student and practice educator evaluations. Physiother Theory Pract. 2021; 37(11): 1185–1198. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Finstad I, Knutstad U, Havnes A, et al.: The paradox of an expected level: the assessment of nursing students during clinical practice – A qualitative study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022; 61: 103332. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. England A, Geers-van Gemeren S, Henner A, et al.: Clinical radiography education across Europe. Radiography (Lond). 2017; 23 Suppl 1: S7–S15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
39. Brown RA, Crookes PA: How do expert clinicians assess student nurses competency during workplace experience? A modified nominal group approach to devising a guidance package. Collegian. 2017; 24(3): 219–225. Publisher Full Text
40. Myers K, Bilyeu C, Covington K, et al.: Clinical teaching competencies in physical therapist education: a modified Delphi study. Phys Ther. 2022; 102(7): pzac063. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
41. Bacon R, Williams LT, Grealish L, et al.: Competency-based assessment for clinical supervisors: design-based research on a web-delivered program. JMIR Res Protoc. 2015; 4(1): e26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
42. Ferguson A, McAllister S, Lincoln M, et al.: Becoming familiar with competency-based student assessment: an evaluation of workshop outcomes. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010; 12(6): 545–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
43. Mallik M, McGowan B: Issues in practice based learning in nursing in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: results from a multi professional scoping exercise. Nurse Educ Today. 2007; 27(1): 52–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
44. Duffy K, Gillies A: Supervision and assessment: the new Nursing and Midwifery Council standards. Nurs Manag (Harrow). 2018; 25(3): 17–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
45. Bacon R, Holmes K, Palermo C: Exploring subjectivity in competency-based assessment judgements of assessors. Nutr Diet. 2017; 74(4): 357–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. Tassoni D, Kent F, Simpson J, et al.: Supporting health professional educators in the workplace: a scoping review. Med Teach. 2023; 45(1): 49–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
47. Gorman CA, Rentsch JR: Evaluating frame-of-reference rater training effectiveness using performance schema accuracy. J Appl Psychol. 2009; 94(5): 1336–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
48. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI. 2020; 2020. Publisher Full Text
49. Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Method. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text
50. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK: Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010; 5: 69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
51. Daudt HML, van Mossel C, Scott SJ: Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13(1): 48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
52. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022; 20(4): 953–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
53. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, et al.: Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1): 143. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
54. Alpine L, Barrett E, Broderick J, et al.: Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: a scoping review protocol. 2022. http://www.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sjxhf
55. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Scoping reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual. 2017; 2015: 1–24. Reference Source
56. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al.: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 350: g7647. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
57. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 07 Feb 2023

Author details Author details

Lucy Alpine
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Emer Barrett
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Julie Broderick
Roles: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

David Mockler
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization

Anne O'Connor
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 06 May 2025, 6:11

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13669.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 12 Jan 2024, 6:11

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13669.2

version 1

Published: 07 Feb 2023, 6:11

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13669.1

© 2025 Alpine L et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

1231

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Alpine L, Barrett E, Broderick J et al. Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2025, 6:11 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13669.3)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 12 Jan 2024

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 03 Feb 2025

Susanne Friis Søndergaard, Viborg Regional Hospital, Aarhus University, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15187.r44454

Thank you for the opportunity to review your protocol. I find this a very interesting topic and believe it is important to provide an overview of the existing literature.
This Scoping Review (ScR) protocol describes a study aiming to investigate and describe education programs delivered to allied health and nursing clinical educators to develop PBA knowledge and skills. The authors tend to follow the Joanna Briggs guidelines for conducting a ScR.

The aim of the study is clearly stated; however, the rationale for conducting this ScR seems rather unclear. I suggest that the authors revise the background section to make it more transparent. Consider adding subheadings to clarify why the aim and the research questions are stated as they are. It would be appropriate to establish a clearer connection between the background and the research questions.

I also noticed a lack of information on how you will address non-scientific and grey literature. It might be appropriate to include a section on the extraction of these types of sources. Additionally, please address the issue that the Open grey database is no longer active and how you plan to handle this.

Furthermore, I suggest providing a clearer statement of the expected contributions of each author to different parts of the study.

Overall, I congratulate you on a well-done job.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Nursing, Education, Hospital design, Advanced nursing practice, Perioperative nursing

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 03 Jun 2025

Lucy Alpine, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, D08W9RT, Ireland

03 Jun 2025

Author Response
Response to Reviewers 09/04/25 from Lucy Alpine re ‘Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol’.

Response to Reviewer 3: ... Continue reading
Response to Reviewers 09/04/25 from Lucy Alpine re ‘Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol’.

Response to Reviewer 3: Susanne Friis Sꬾndergaard

Review comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review your protocol. I find this a very interesting topic and believe it is important to provide an overview of the existing literature. This Scoping Review (ScR) protocol describes a study aiming to investigate and describe education programs delivered to allied health and nursing clinical educators to develop PBA knowledge and skills. The authors tend to follow the Joanna Briggs guidelines for conducting a ScR.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review comment 2: The aim of the study is clearly stated; however, the rationale for conducting this ScR seems rather unclear. I suggest that the authors revise the background section to make it more transparent. Consider adding subheadings to clarify why the aim and the research questions are stated as they are. It would be appropriate to establish a clearer connection between the background and the research questions.

Response: Thank you for the recognition of the clearly stated aims of the study. In response to your suggestions the research team have reviewed the background section thoroughly and added subheadings to assist the structure and flow of this section.

Heading 1: Background

Heading 2: The Challenges and Complexities of Performance-Based Assessment

Heading 3: Application of Performance-Based Assessment in Healthcare Professional Education

Heading 4: Education Programmes for Performance-Based Assessment

Heading 5: Rationale for a Scoping Review

We have merged some of the sections and restructured the sequence of the paragraphs in the background section to assist with clarity. In addition, we have restructured and added supplementary sentences to the rationale section, which summarises the reasons for scoping review and provides a clearer connection to the research question.

Review comment 3: I also noticed a lack of information on how you will address non-scientific and grey literature. It might be appropriate to include a section on the extraction of these types of sources. Additionally, please address the issue that the Open Grey database is no longer active and how you plan to handle this.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. The research team developed a Grey literature search strategy which provides a more in-depth description of the search strategies and terms used. This strategy is now referenced in the ‘Search Strategy’ section of the protocol and has been deposited in a repository in line with the HRB article guidelines.

The GreyLit database was no longer available when the search strategies were carried out. However, the other databases have yielded a significant volume and range of literature, and we are confident they captured relevant research on this topic from the Grey literature. We have removed GreyLit from Table 1 in the protocol.

Review comment 4: Furthermore, I suggest providing a clearer statement of the expected contributions of each author to different parts of the study.

Response: The authors details are available in Version 1 publication in line with HRB requirements:

Authors roles:
Alpine L: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Barrett E: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing
Broderick J: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing
Mockler D: Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization
O'Connor A: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing
Review comment 5: Overall, I congratulate you on a well-done job.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.
Response to Reviewers 09/04/25 from Lucy Alpine re ‘Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol’.

Response to Reviewer 3: Susanne Friis Sꬾndergaard

Review comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review your protocol. I find this a very interesting topic and believe it is important to provide an overview of the existing literature. This Scoping Review (ScR) protocol describes a study aiming to investigate and describe education programs delivered to allied health and nursing clinical educators to develop PBA knowledge and skills. The authors tend to follow the Joanna Briggs guidelines for conducting a ScR.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review comment 2: The aim of the study is clearly stated; however, the rationale for conducting this ScR seems rather unclear. I suggest that the authors revise the background section to make it more transparent. Consider adding subheadings to clarify why the aim and the research questions are stated as they are. It would be appropriate to establish a clearer connection between the background and the research questions.

Response: Thank you for the recognition of the clearly stated aims of the study. In response to your suggestions the research team have reviewed the background section thoroughly and added subheadings to assist the structure and flow of this section.

Heading 1: Background

Heading 2: The Challenges and Complexities of Performance-Based Assessment

Heading 3: Application of Performance-Based Assessment in Healthcare Professional Education

Heading 4: Education Programmes for Performance-Based Assessment

Heading 5: Rationale for a Scoping Review

We have merged some of the sections and restructured the sequence of the paragraphs in the background section to assist with clarity. In addition, we have restructured and added supplementary sentences to the rationale section, which summarises the reasons for scoping review and provides a clearer connection to the research question.

Review comment 3: I also noticed a lack of information on how you will address non-scientific and grey literature. It might be appropriate to include a section on the extraction of these types of sources. Additionally, please address the issue that the Open Grey database is no longer active and how you plan to handle this.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. The research team developed a Grey literature search strategy which provides a more in-depth description of the search strategies and terms used. This strategy is now referenced in the ‘Search Strategy’ section of the protocol and has been deposited in a repository in line with the HRB article guidelines.

The GreyLit database was no longer available when the search strategies were carried out. However, the other databases have yielded a significant volume and range of literature, and we are confident they captured relevant research on this topic from the Grey literature. We have removed GreyLit from Table 1 in the protocol.

Review comment 4: Furthermore, I suggest providing a clearer statement of the expected contributions of each author to different parts of the study.

Response: The authors details are available in Version 1 publication in line with HRB requirements:

Authors roles:
Alpine L: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Barrett E: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing
Broderick J: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing
Mockler D: Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization
O'Connor A: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing
Review comment 5: Overall, I congratulate you on a well-done job.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 03 Jun 2025

Lucy Alpine, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, D08W9RT, Ireland

03 Jun 2025

Author Response
Response to Reviewers 09/04/25 from Lucy Alpine re ‘Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol’.

Response to Reviewer 3: ... Continue reading
Response to Reviewers 09/04/25 from Lucy Alpine re ‘Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol’.

Response to Reviewer 3: Susanne Friis Sꬾndergaard

Review comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review your protocol. I find this a very interesting topic and believe it is important to provide an overview of the existing literature. This Scoping Review (ScR) protocol describes a study aiming to investigate and describe education programs delivered to allied health and nursing clinical educators to develop PBA knowledge and skills. The authors tend to follow the Joanna Briggs guidelines for conducting a ScR.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review comment 2: The aim of the study is clearly stated; however, the rationale for conducting this ScR seems rather unclear. I suggest that the authors revise the background section to make it more transparent. Consider adding subheadings to clarify why the aim and the research questions are stated as they are. It would be appropriate to establish a clearer connection between the background and the research questions.

Response: Thank you for the recognition of the clearly stated aims of the study. In response to your suggestions the research team have reviewed the background section thoroughly and added subheadings to assist the structure and flow of this section.

Heading 1: Background

Heading 2: The Challenges and Complexities of Performance-Based Assessment

Heading 3: Application of Performance-Based Assessment in Healthcare Professional Education

Heading 4: Education Programmes for Performance-Based Assessment

Heading 5: Rationale for a Scoping Review

We have merged some of the sections and restructured the sequence of the paragraphs in the background section to assist with clarity. In addition, we have restructured and added supplementary sentences to the rationale section, which summarises the reasons for scoping review and provides a clearer connection to the research question.

Review comment 3: I also noticed a lack of information on how you will address non-scientific and grey literature. It might be appropriate to include a section on the extraction of these types of sources. Additionally, please address the issue that the Open Grey database is no longer active and how you plan to handle this.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. The research team developed a Grey literature search strategy which provides a more in-depth description of the search strategies and terms used. This strategy is now referenced in the ‘Search Strategy’ section of the protocol and has been deposited in a repository in line with the HRB article guidelines.

The GreyLit database was no longer available when the search strategies were carried out. However, the other databases have yielded a significant volume and range of literature, and we are confident they captured relevant research on this topic from the Grey literature. We have removed GreyLit from Table 1 in the protocol.

Review comment 4: Furthermore, I suggest providing a clearer statement of the expected contributions of each author to different parts of the study.

Response: The authors details are available in Version 1 publication in line with HRB requirements:

Authors roles:
Alpine L: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Barrett E: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing
Broderick J: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing
Mockler D: Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization
O'Connor A: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing
Review comment 5: Overall, I congratulate you on a well-done job.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.
Response to Reviewers 09/04/25 from Lucy Alpine re ‘Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol’.

Response to Reviewer 3: Susanne Friis Sꬾndergaard

Review comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review your protocol. I find this a very interesting topic and believe it is important to provide an overview of the existing literature. This Scoping Review (ScR) protocol describes a study aiming to investigate and describe education programs delivered to allied health and nursing clinical educators to develop PBA knowledge and skills. The authors tend to follow the Joanna Briggs guidelines for conducting a ScR.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review comment 2: The aim of the study is clearly stated; however, the rationale for conducting this ScR seems rather unclear. I suggest that the authors revise the background section to make it more transparent. Consider adding subheadings to clarify why the aim and the research questions are stated as they are. It would be appropriate to establish a clearer connection between the background and the research questions.

Response: Thank you for the recognition of the clearly stated aims of the study. In response to your suggestions the research team have reviewed the background section thoroughly and added subheadings to assist the structure and flow of this section.

Heading 1: Background

Heading 2: The Challenges and Complexities of Performance-Based Assessment

Heading 3: Application of Performance-Based Assessment in Healthcare Professional Education

Heading 4: Education Programmes for Performance-Based Assessment

Heading 5: Rationale for a Scoping Review

We have merged some of the sections and restructured the sequence of the paragraphs in the background section to assist with clarity. In addition, we have restructured and added supplementary sentences to the rationale section, which summarises the reasons for scoping review and provides a clearer connection to the research question.

Review comment 3: I also noticed a lack of information on how you will address non-scientific and grey literature. It might be appropriate to include a section on the extraction of these types of sources. Additionally, please address the issue that the Open Grey database is no longer active and how you plan to handle this.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. The research team developed a Grey literature search strategy which provides a more in-depth description of the search strategies and terms used. This strategy is now referenced in the ‘Search Strategy’ section of the protocol and has been deposited in a repository in line with the HRB article guidelines.

The GreyLit database was no longer available when the search strategies were carried out. However, the other databases have yielded a significant volume and range of literature, and we are confident they captured relevant research on this topic from the Grey literature. We have removed GreyLit from Table 1 in the protocol.

Review comment 4: Furthermore, I suggest providing a clearer statement of the expected contributions of each author to different parts of the study.

Response: The authors details are available in Version 1 publication in line with HRB requirements:

Authors roles:
Alpine L: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Barrett E: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing
Broderick J: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing
Mockler D: Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization
O'Connor A: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing
Review comment 5: Overall, I congratulate you on a well-done job.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 30 Jan 2024

Lindy L. McAllister, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15187.r37759

The authors have satisfactorily revised the paper to explain why they ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 07 Feb 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 18 Oct 2023

Yvonne Finn, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14948.r36233

Rationale: The rationale for this scoping review is presented well. The multifaceted challenges presented to clinical educators in assessing BPA are clearly outlined. The need for educational training in PBA for these clinical assessors is made.

Can the authors explain how they view the evidence from BPA education in medical education and/or how, if at all, this related to BPA education in nursing and allied health?

Research question: The research question is clearly stated.

Methods: The study design and methods are described well.

Can the authors consider the relevance of reporting key findings/impact of identified PBA education programmes as one of the objectives? This may be challenging to interpret in view of the types of studies listed in the inclusion criteria and the authors’ intention not to do a critical appraisal of included studies. A focus on the impact of interventions is not usually included in scoping reviews for these reasons. At the same time, it is appropriate to report/summarise the key findings as they relate to the scoping review research question.

Please review the purpose of reference to Abstrackr. Do the authors intend to use this?

Please not the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review checklist is abbreviated to PRISMA-ScR.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 15 Jan 2024

Lucy Alpine, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, D08W9RT, Ireland

15 Jan 2024

Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2: Dr Joanne Finn
Review comment 8: Rationale - The rationale for this scoping review is presented well. The multifaceted challenges presented to clinical educators in assessing ... Continue reading
Response to Reviewer 2: Dr Joanne Finn
Review comment 8: Rationale - The rationale for this scoping review is presented well. The multifaceted challenges presented to clinical educators in assessing BPA are clearly outlined. The need for educational training in PBA for these clinical assessors is made.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review Comment 9: Can the authors explain how they view the evidence from BPA education in medical education and/or how, if at all, this related to BPA education in nursing and allied health?

Response: Please see our response to reviewer 1, comment 2. As outlined, we have included further details in the Introduction section of the protocol.

Review comment 10: Research question - The research question is clearly stated.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment.

Review comment 11: Methods: The study design and methods are described well.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 12: Can the authors consider the relevance of reporting key findings/impact of identified PBA education programmes as one of the objectives?

Response: Thank you for your comment. The key findings/impact of PBA education programmes are not included as a specific objective in line with the definitions and purposes of a scoping review (Levac et al, 2010, Peters et al, 2022). The broad objective of this scoping review is to investigate and describe the range and characteristics of PBA programmes, identifying commonalities and differences. The review will include studies of all designs, including grey literature and without a specific focus on RCTs, the effectiveness of PBA programmes cannot therefore be specifically evaluated. However, key findings and educational impact have been included in the data extraction fields and may assist with the objectives of recognising gaps in the existing research and determining the potential value of a full systematic review on this topic (Levac et al, 2010).

Review comment 13: Please review the purpose of reference to Abstrackr. Do the authors intend to use this?

Response: Please see our response to reviewer 1, comment 4.

Review comments 14: Please not the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review checklist is abbreviated to PRISMA-ScR.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected the text.
Response to Reviewer 2: Dr Joanne Finn
Review comment 8: Rationale - The rationale for this scoping review is presented well. The multifaceted challenges presented to clinical educators in assessing BPA are clearly outlined. The need for educational training in PBA for these clinical assessors is made.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review Comment 9: Can the authors explain how they view the evidence from BPA education in medical education and/or how, if at all, this related to BPA education in nursing and allied health?

Response: Please see our response to reviewer 1, comment 2. As outlined, we have included further details in the Introduction section of the protocol.

Review comment 10: Research question - The research question is clearly stated.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment.

Review comment 11: Methods: The study design and methods are described well.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 12: Can the authors consider the relevance of reporting key findings/impact of identified PBA education programmes as one of the objectives?

Response: Thank you for your comment. The key findings/impact of PBA education programmes are not included as a specific objective in line with the definitions and purposes of a scoping review (Levac et al, 2010, Peters et al, 2022). The broad objective of this scoping review is to investigate and describe the range and characteristics of PBA programmes, identifying commonalities and differences. The review will include studies of all designs, including grey literature and without a specific focus on RCTs, the effectiveness of PBA programmes cannot therefore be specifically evaluated. However, key findings and educational impact have been included in the data extraction fields and may assist with the objectives of recognising gaps in the existing research and determining the potential value of a full systematic review on this topic (Levac et al, 2010).

Review comment 13: Please review the purpose of reference to Abstrackr. Do the authors intend to use this?

Response: Please see our response to reviewer 1, comment 4.

Review comments 14: Please not the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review checklist is abbreviated to PRISMA-ScR.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected the text.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 15 Jan 2024

Lucy Alpine, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, D08W9RT, Ireland

15 Jan 2024

Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2: Dr Joanne Finn
Review comment 8: Rationale - The rationale for this scoping review is presented well. The multifaceted challenges presented to clinical educators in assessing ... Continue reading
Response to Reviewer 2: Dr Joanne Finn
Review comment 8: Rationale - The rationale for this scoping review is presented well. The multifaceted challenges presented to clinical educators in assessing BPA are clearly outlined. The need for educational training in PBA for these clinical assessors is made.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review Comment 9: Can the authors explain how they view the evidence from BPA education in medical education and/or how, if at all, this related to BPA education in nursing and allied health?

Response: Please see our response to reviewer 1, comment 2. As outlined, we have included further details in the Introduction section of the protocol.

Review comment 10: Research question - The research question is clearly stated.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment.

Review comment 11: Methods: The study design and methods are described well.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 12: Can the authors consider the relevance of reporting key findings/impact of identified PBA education programmes as one of the objectives?

Response: Thank you for your comment. The key findings/impact of PBA education programmes are not included as a specific objective in line with the definitions and purposes of a scoping review (Levac et al, 2010, Peters et al, 2022). The broad objective of this scoping review is to investigate and describe the range and characteristics of PBA programmes, identifying commonalities and differences. The review will include studies of all designs, including grey literature and without a specific focus on RCTs, the effectiveness of PBA programmes cannot therefore be specifically evaluated. However, key findings and educational impact have been included in the data extraction fields and may assist with the objectives of recognising gaps in the existing research and determining the potential value of a full systematic review on this topic (Levac et al, 2010).

Review comment 13: Please review the purpose of reference to Abstrackr. Do the authors intend to use this?

Response: Please see our response to reviewer 1, comment 4.

Review comments 14: Please not the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review checklist is abbreviated to PRISMA-ScR.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected the text.
Response to Reviewer 2: Dr Joanne Finn
Review comment 8: Rationale - The rationale for this scoping review is presented well. The multifaceted challenges presented to clinical educators in assessing BPA are clearly outlined. The need for educational training in PBA for these clinical assessors is made.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review Comment 9: Can the authors explain how they view the evidence from BPA education in medical education and/or how, if at all, this related to BPA education in nursing and allied health?

Response: Please see our response to reviewer 1, comment 2. As outlined, we have included further details in the Introduction section of the protocol.

Review comment 10: Research question - The research question is clearly stated.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment.

Review comment 11: Methods: The study design and methods are described well.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 12: Can the authors consider the relevance of reporting key findings/impact of identified PBA education programmes as one of the objectives?

Response: Thank you for your comment. The key findings/impact of PBA education programmes are not included as a specific objective in line with the definitions and purposes of a scoping review (Levac et al, 2010, Peters et al, 2022). The broad objective of this scoping review is to investigate and describe the range and characteristics of PBA programmes, identifying commonalities and differences. The review will include studies of all designs, including grey literature and without a specific focus on RCTs, the effectiveness of PBA programmes cannot therefore be specifically evaluated. However, key findings and educational impact have been included in the data extraction fields and may assist with the objectives of recognising gaps in the existing research and determining the potential value of a full systematic review on this topic (Levac et al, 2010).

Review comment 13: Please review the purpose of reference to Abstrackr. Do the authors intend to use this?

Response: Please see our response to reviewer 1, comment 4.

Review comments 14: Please not the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review checklist is abbreviated to PRISMA-ScR.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected the text.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 08 Sep 2023

Lindy L. McAllister, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14948.r35621

A clearly written protocol to add to knowledge on an important topic.

It is not clear why the decision was taken to exclude papers from medicine, which as authors says has addressed this topic. This would allow a compare and contrast of findings from an area with little literature - nursing and allied health professions, to an area with more literature – medical education. Or will this compare and contrast be done in Discussion section of subsequent paper which presents the scoping review.

Comprehensive literature introduces the gap in research on education of assessors to use PBA.

Good argument made for a scoping review rather than systematic review.

Search strategy is comprehensive and logical and search terms should pick up all possible papers in the specific nursing and allied health professions.

Not sure why the sentence on Abstracker is included given it does not appear this software will be used.

There are a few typos eg guidance …. Are instead of guidance …. Is; missing plural s on recommendation.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 15 Jan 2024

Lucy Alpine, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, D08W9RT, Ireland

15 Jan 2024

Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1: Prof. Lindy McAllister
Review comment 1: A clearly written protocol to add to knowledge on an important topic.
- Response: Thank you for taking time
... Continue reading
Response to Reviewer 1: Prof. Lindy McAllister
Review comment 1: A clearly written protocol to add to knowledge on an important topic.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review comment 2: It is not clear why the decision was taken to exclude papers from medicine, which as authors says has addressed this topic. This would allow a compare and contrast of findings from an area with little literature - nursing and allied health professions, to an area with more literature – medical education. Or will this compare and contrast be done in Discussion section of subsequent paper which presents the scoping review.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The research team debated the decision to include medical education at length prior to commencing the study. In the end, we decided that the differences in the assessment and supervision processes of medical and allied health/nursing students may have different implications for the content of education programmes addressing PBA and thus the scoping review.

A decision was therefore taken to limit the scoping review to allied health/nursing professions only, with a view to providing a clear review of the literature of these professions. We agree, we could have provided clearer justification for this in the introduction and have added further details to this section.

We have also now clearly articulated our intention to compare our scoping review findings with that of the medical literature in the Data Analysis and Presentations section.

Review comment 3: Comprehensive literature introduces the gap in research on education of assessors to use PBA.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 4: Good argument made for a scoping review rather than systematic review.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 5: Search strategy is comprehensive and logical and search terms should pick up all possible papers in the specific nursing and allied health professions.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment.

Review comment 6: Not sure why the sentence on Abstracker is included given it does not appear this software will be used.

Response: The authors understood that a free online data collection and organisation tool should be identified in the protocol. The Editorial Team of HRB Open have clarified they have an open data policy and require all supporting data to made available on publication. This will be achieved through depositing our publication in the TCD Tara Institutional Repository. The reference to Abstracker has therefore been removed from the protocol.

Review comment 7: There are a few typos e.g., guidance …. Are instead of guidance …. Is; missing plural s on recommendation.

Response: Thank you, we have proofread the article and corrected the typos.
Response to Reviewer 1: Prof. Lindy McAllister
Review comment 1: A clearly written protocol to add to knowledge on an important topic.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review comment 2: It is not clear why the decision was taken to exclude papers from medicine, which as authors says has addressed this topic. This would allow a compare and contrast of findings from an area with little literature - nursing and allied health professions, to an area with more literature – medical education. Or will this compare and contrast be done in Discussion section of subsequent paper which presents the scoping review.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The research team debated the decision to include medical education at length prior to commencing the study. In the end, we decided that the differences in the assessment and supervision processes of medical and allied health/nursing students may have different implications for the content of education programmes addressing PBA and thus the scoping review.

A decision was therefore taken to limit the scoping review to allied health/nursing professions only, with a view to providing a clear review of the literature of these professions. We agree, we could have provided clearer justification for this in the introduction and have added further details to this section.

We have also now clearly articulated our intention to compare our scoping review findings with that of the medical literature in the Data Analysis and Presentations section.

Review comment 3: Comprehensive literature introduces the gap in research on education of assessors to use PBA.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 4: Good argument made for a scoping review rather than systematic review.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 5: Search strategy is comprehensive and logical and search terms should pick up all possible papers in the specific nursing and allied health professions.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment.

Review comment 6: Not sure why the sentence on Abstracker is included given it does not appear this software will be used.

Response: The authors understood that a free online data collection and organisation tool should be identified in the protocol. The Editorial Team of HRB Open have clarified they have an open data policy and require all supporting data to made available on publication. This will be achieved through depositing our publication in the TCD Tara Institutional Repository. The reference to Abstracker has therefore been removed from the protocol.

Review comment 7: There are a few typos e.g., guidance …. Are instead of guidance …. Is; missing plural s on recommendation.

Response: Thank you, we have proofread the article and corrected the typos.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 15 Jan 2024

Lucy Alpine, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, D08W9RT, Ireland

15 Jan 2024

Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1: Prof. Lindy McAllister
Review comment 1: A clearly written protocol to add to knowledge on an important topic.
- Response: Thank you for taking time
... Continue reading
Response to Reviewer 1: Prof. Lindy McAllister
Review comment 1: A clearly written protocol to add to knowledge on an important topic.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review comment 2: It is not clear why the decision was taken to exclude papers from medicine, which as authors says has addressed this topic. This would allow a compare and contrast of findings from an area with little literature - nursing and allied health professions, to an area with more literature – medical education. Or will this compare and contrast be done in Discussion section of subsequent paper which presents the scoping review.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The research team debated the decision to include medical education at length prior to commencing the study. In the end, we decided that the differences in the assessment and supervision processes of medical and allied health/nursing students may have different implications for the content of education programmes addressing PBA and thus the scoping review.

A decision was therefore taken to limit the scoping review to allied health/nursing professions only, with a view to providing a clear review of the literature of these professions. We agree, we could have provided clearer justification for this in the introduction and have added further details to this section.

We have also now clearly articulated our intention to compare our scoping review findings with that of the medical literature in the Data Analysis and Presentations section.

Review comment 3: Comprehensive literature introduces the gap in research on education of assessors to use PBA.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 4: Good argument made for a scoping review rather than systematic review.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 5: Search strategy is comprehensive and logical and search terms should pick up all possible papers in the specific nursing and allied health professions.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment.

Review comment 6: Not sure why the sentence on Abstracker is included given it does not appear this software will be used.

Response: The authors understood that a free online data collection and organisation tool should be identified in the protocol. The Editorial Team of HRB Open have clarified they have an open data policy and require all supporting data to made available on publication. This will be achieved through depositing our publication in the TCD Tara Institutional Repository. The reference to Abstracker has therefore been removed from the protocol.

Review comment 7: There are a few typos e.g., guidance …. Are instead of guidance …. Is; missing plural s on recommendation.

Response: Thank you, we have proofread the article and corrected the typos.
Response to Reviewer 1: Prof. Lindy McAllister
Review comment 1: A clearly written protocol to add to knowledge on an important topic.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review comment 2: It is not clear why the decision was taken to exclude papers from medicine, which as authors says has addressed this topic. This would allow a compare and contrast of findings from an area with little literature - nursing and allied health professions, to an area with more literature – medical education. Or will this compare and contrast be done in Discussion section of subsequent paper which presents the scoping review.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The research team debated the decision to include medical education at length prior to commencing the study. In the end, we decided that the differences in the assessment and supervision processes of medical and allied health/nursing students may have different implications for the content of education programmes addressing PBA and thus the scoping review.

A decision was therefore taken to limit the scoping review to allied health/nursing professions only, with a view to providing a clear review of the literature of these professions. We agree, we could have provided clearer justification for this in the introduction and have added further details to this section.

We have also now clearly articulated our intention to compare our scoping review findings with that of the medical literature in the Data Analysis and Presentations section.

Review comment 3: Comprehensive literature introduces the gap in research on education of assessors to use PBA.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 4: Good argument made for a scoping review rather than systematic review.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 5: Search strategy is comprehensive and logical and search terms should pick up all possible papers in the specific nursing and allied health professions.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment.

Review comment 6: Not sure why the sentence on Abstracker is included given it does not appear this software will be used.

Response: The authors understood that a free online data collection and organisation tool should be identified in the protocol. The Editorial Team of HRB Open have clarified they have an open data policy and require all supporting data to made available on publication. This will be achieved through depositing our publication in the TCD Tara Institutional Repository. The reference to Abstracker has therefore been removed from the protocol.

Review comment 7: There are a few typos e.g., guidance …. Are instead of guidance …. Is; missing plural s on recommendation.

Response: Thank you, we have proofread the article and corrected the typos.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 07 Feb 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 3 (revision) 06 May 25
Version 2 (revision) 12 Jan 24	read		read
Version 1 07 Feb 23	read	read

Lindy L. McAllister, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Yvonne Finn, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
Susanne Friis Søndergaard, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

43 Views

03 Feb 2025 | for Version 2

Susanne Friis Søndergaard, Viborg Regional Hospital, Aarhus University, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

43 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Nursing, Education, Hospital design, Advanced nursing practice, Perioperative nursing

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

03 Jun 2025

Lucy Alpine, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, D08W9RT, Ireland

Response to Reviewers 09/04/25 from Lucy Alpine re ‘Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol’.

Response to Reviewer 3: Susanne Friis Sꬾndergaard

Review comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review your protocol. I find this a very interesting topic and believe it is important to provide an overview of the existing literature. This Scoping Review (ScR) protocol describes a study aiming to investigate and describe education programs delivered to allied health and nursing clinical educators to develop PBA knowledge and skills. The authors tend to follow the Joanna Briggs guidelines for conducting a ScR.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review comment 2: The aim of the study is clearly stated; however, the rationale for conducting this ScR seems rather unclear. I suggest that the authors revise the background section to make it more transparent. Consider adding subheadings to clarify why the aim and the research questions are stated as they are. It would be appropriate to establish a clearer connection between the background and the research questions.

Response: Thank you for the recognition of the clearly stated aims of the study. In response to your suggestions the research team have reviewed the background section thoroughly and added subheadings to assist the structure and flow of this section.
- Heading 1: Background
- Heading 2: The Challenges and Complexities of Performance-Based Assessment
- Heading 3: Application of Performance-Based Assessment in Healthcare Professional Education
- Heading 4: Education Programmes for Performance-Based Assessment
- Heading 5: Rationale for a Scoping Review

We have merged some of the sections and restructured the sequence of the paragraphs in the background section to assist with clarity. In addition, we have restructured and added supplementary sentences to the rationale section, which summarises the reasons for scoping review and provides a clearer connection to the research question.

Review comment 3: I also noticed a lack of information on how you will address non-scientific and grey literature. It might be appropriate to include a section on the extraction of these types of sources. Additionally, please address the issue that the Open Grey database is no longer active and how you plan to handle this.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. The research team developed a Grey literature search strategy which provides a more in-depth description of the search strategies and terms used. This strategy is now referenced in the ‘Search Strategy’ section of the protocol and has been deposited in a repository in line with the HRB article guidelines.

The GreyLit database was no longer available when the search strategies were carried out. However, the other databases have yielded a significant volume and range of literature, and we are confident they captured relevant research on this topic from the Grey literature. We have removed GreyLit from Table 1 in the protocol.

Review comment 4: Furthermore, I suggest providing a clearer statement of the expected contributions of each author to different parts of the study.

Response: The authors details are available in Version 1 publication in line with HRB requirements:

Authors roles:
Alpine L: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Barrett E: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing
Broderick J: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing
Mockler D: Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization
O'Connor A: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing
Review comment 5: Overall, I congratulate you on a well-done job.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

36 Views

30 Jan 2024 | for Version 2

Lindy L. McAllister, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

36 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have satisfactorily revised the paper to explain why they excluded literature from medicine in their review, and corrected typos.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

63 Views

18 Oct 2023 | for Version 1

Yvonne Finn, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland

63 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

15 Jan 2024

Lucy Alpine, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, D08W9RT, Ireland

Response to Reviewer 2: Dr Joanne Finn
Review comment 8: Rationale - The rationale for this scoping review is presented well. The multifaceted challenges presented to clinical educators in assessing BPA are clearly outlined. The need for educational training in PBA for these clinical assessors is made.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review Comment 9: Can the authors explain how they view the evidence from BPA education in medical education and/or how, if at all, this related to BPA education in nursing and allied health?

Response: Please see our response to reviewer 1, comment 2. As outlined, we have included further details in the Introduction section of the protocol.

Review comment 10: Research question - The research question is clearly stated.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment.

Review comment 11: Methods: The study design and methods are described well.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 12: Can the authors consider the relevance of reporting key findings/impact of identified PBA education programmes as one of the objectives?

Response: Thank you for your comment. The key findings/impact of PBA education programmes are not included as a specific objective in line with the definitions and purposes of a scoping review (Levac et al, 2010, Peters et al, 2022). The broad objective of this scoping review is to investigate and describe the range and characteristics of PBA programmes, identifying commonalities and differences. The review will include studies of all designs, including grey literature and without a specific focus on RCTs, the effectiveness of PBA programmes cannot therefore be specifically evaluated. However, key findings and educational impact have been included in the data extraction fields and may assist with the objectives of recognising gaps in the existing research and determining the potential value of a full systematic review on this topic (Levac et al, 2010).

Review comment 13: Please review the purpose of reference to Abstrackr. Do the authors intend to use this?

Response: Please see our response to reviewer 1, comment 4.

Review comments 14: Please not the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review checklist is abbreviated to PRISMA-ScR.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected the text.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

53 Views

08 Sep 2023 | for Version 1

Lindy L. McAllister, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

53 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

15 Jan 2024

Lucy Alpine, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Center for Health Sciences, D08W9RT, Ireland

Response to Reviewer 1: Prof. Lindy McAllister
Review comment 1: A clearly written protocol to add to knowledge on an important topic.

Response: Thank you for taking time to review this protocol and for your valuable comments.

Review comment 2: It is not clear why the decision was taken to exclude papers from medicine, which as authors says has addressed this topic. This would allow a compare and contrast of findings from an area with little literature - nursing and allied health professions, to an area with more literature – medical education. Or will this compare and contrast be done in Discussion section of subsequent paper which presents the scoping review.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The research team debated the decision to include medical education at length prior to commencing the study. In the end, we decided that the differences in the assessment and supervision processes of medical and allied health/nursing students may have different implications for the content of education programmes addressing PBA and thus the scoping review.

A decision was therefore taken to limit the scoping review to allied health/nursing professions only, with a view to providing a clear review of the literature of these professions. We agree, we could have provided clearer justification for this in the introduction and have added further details to this section.

We have also now clearly articulated our intention to compare our scoping review findings with that of the medical literature in the Data Analysis and Presentations section.

Review comment 3: Comprehensive literature introduces the gap in research on education of assessors to use PBA.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 4: Good argument made for a scoping review rather than systematic review.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.

Review comment 5: Search strategy is comprehensive and logical and search terms should pick up all possible papers in the specific nursing and allied health professions.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment.

Review comment 6: Not sure why the sentence on Abstracker is included given it does not appear this software will be used.

Response: The authors understood that a free online data collection and organisation tool should be identified in the protocol. The Editorial Team of HRB Open have clarified they have an open data policy and require all supporting data to made available on publication. This will be achieved through depositing our publication in the TCD Tara Institutional Repository. The reference to Abstracker has therefore been removed from the protocol.

Review comment 7: There are a few typos e.g., guidance …. Are instead of guidance …. Is; missing plural s on recommendation.

Response: Thank you, we have proofread the article and corrected the typos.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Meyer IS, Louw A, Ernstzen D: Perceptions of physiotherapy clinical educators' dual roles as mentors and assessors: influence on teaching-learning relationships. S Afr J Physiother. 2019; 75(1): 468. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Epstein RM, Hundert EM: Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA. 2002; 287(2): 226–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Holmboe ES, Kogan JR: Observation in medical education: time for a broader conversation? Fam Syst Health. 2018; 36(1): 17–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. O'Connor A, Cantillon P, Parker M, et al.: Juggling roles and generating solutions; practice-based educators' perceptions of performance-based assessment of physiotherapy students. Physiotherapy. 2019; 105(4): 446–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. O'Brien AT, McNeil K, Dawson A: The student experience of clinical supervision across health disciplines - Perspectives and remedies to enhance clinical placement. Nurse Educ Pract. 2019; 34: 48–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Quigley D, Loftus L, McGuire A, et al.: An optimal environment for placement learning: listening to the voices of speech and language therapy students. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2020; 55(4): 506–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. McCarthy B, Murphy S: Preceptors' experiences of clinically educating and assessing undergraduate nursing students: an Irish context. J Nurs Manag. 2010; 18(2): 234–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Seale J, Gallagher C, Grisbrooke J: Fieldwork educator training: design and evaluation of an educational package. Br J Occup Ther. 1996; 59(11): 529–34. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Seldomridge LA, Walsh CM: Waging the war on clinical grade inflation: the ongoing quest. Nurse Educ. 2018; 43(4): 178–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Govaerts M, van der Vleuten CP: Validity in work-based assessment: expanding our horizons. Med Educ. 2013; 47(12): 1164–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Alpine LM, O'Connor A, McGuinness M, et al.: Performance-based assessment during clinical placement: cross-sectional investigation of a training workshop for practice educators. Nurs Health Sci. 2021; 23(1): 113–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Heaslip V, Scammell JM: Failing underperforming students: the role of grading in practice assessment. Nurse Educ Pract. 2012; 12(2): 95–100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. O'Connor A, Cantillon P, McGarr O, et al.: Navigating the system: physiotherapy student perceptions of performance-based assessment. Med Teach. 2018; 40(9): 928–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Yeates P, O'Neill P, Mann K, et al.: Seeing the same thing differently: mechanisms that contribute to assessor differences in directly-observed performance assessments. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013; 18(3): 325–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Kilgour AJ: Assessment of competency in radiography students — a new approach. Radiographer. 2011; 58(3): 32–7. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Cross V, Hicks C, Barwell F: Exploring the gap between evidence and judgement: using video vignettes for practice-based assessment of physiotherapy undergraduates. Assess Eval High Educ. 2001; 26(3): 189–212. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Ogden PE, Edwards J, Howell M, et al.: The effect of two different faculty development interventions on third-year clerkship performance evaluations. Fam Med. 2008; 40(5): 333–8. PubMed Abstract

[18] 18. Gingerich A, Regehr G, Eva KW: Rater-based assessments as social judgments: rethinking the etiology of rater errors. Acad Med. 2011; 86(10 Suppl): S1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Duffy K, Hardicre J: Supporting failing students in practice. 1: Assessment. Nurs Times. 2007; 103(47): 28–9. PubMed Abstract

[20] 20. Dudding CC, McCready V, Nunez LM, et al.: Clinical supervision in speech-language pathology and audiology in the United States: development of a professional specialty. Clin Superv. 2017; 36(2): 161–81. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Reubenson A, Ng L, Gucciardi DF: The Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice tool provides informative assessments of clinical and professional dimensions of student performance in undergraduate placements: a longitudinal validity and reliability study. J Physiother. 2020; 66(2): 113–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Newstead C, Johnston CL, Nisbet G, et al.: Physiotherapy clinical education in Australia: an exploration of clinical educator characteristics, confidence and training requirements. Aust Health Rev. 2019; 43(6): 696–705. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Wu XV, Enskär K, Pua LH, et al.: Clinical nurse leaders' and academics' perspectives in clinical assessment of final-year nursing students: a qualitative study. Nurs Health Sci. 2017; 19(3): 287–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, Huot SJ: Effects of training in direct observation of medical residents' clinical competence: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140(11): 874–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Kogan JR, Conforti LN, Bernabeo E, et al.: How faculty members experience workplace-based assessment rater training: a qualitative study. Med Educ. 2015; 49(7): 692–708. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Milne DL, Sheikh AI, Pattison S, et al.: Evidence-based training for clinical supervisors: a systematic review of 11 controlled studies. Clin Superv. 2011; 30(1): 53–71. Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Steinert Y, Mann K, Anderson B, et al.: A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: a 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40. Med Teach. 2016; 38(8): 769–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Mikkonen K, Kuivila HM, Sjögren T, et al.: Social, health care and rehabilitation educators' competence in professional education-Empirical testing of a model. Health Soc Care Community. 2022; 30(1): e75–e85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Harvey S, Spurr P, Sidebotham M, et al.: Describing and evaluating a foundational education/training program preparing nurses, midwives and other helping professionals as supervisors of clinical supervision using the Role Development Model. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020; 42: 102671. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Hemmer PA, Dadekian GA, Terndrup C, et al.: Regular formal evaluation sessions are effective as frame-of-reference training for faculty evaluators of clerkship medical students. J Gen Intern Med. 2015; 30(9): 1313–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[31] 31. Hanson JL, Rosenberg AA, Lane JL: Narrative descriptions should replace grades and numerical ratings for clinical performance in medical education in the United States. Front Psychol. 2013; 4: 668. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] 32. Regehr G, Eva K, Ginsburg S, et al.: Assessment in postgraduate medical education: trends and issues in assessment in the workplace. 2011. Reference Source

[33] 33. Walsh E, Foley T, Sinnott C, et al.: Developing and piloting a resource for training assessors in use of the Mini-CEX (Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise). Educ Prim Care. 2017; 28(4): 243–245. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Kogan JR, Hatala R, Hauer KE, et al.: Guidelines: the do's, don'ts and don't knows of direct observation of clinical skills in medical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2017; 6(5): 286–305. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[35] 35. Swanberg M, Woodson-Smith S, Pangaro L, et al.: Factors and interactions influencing direct observation: a literature review guided by activity theory. Teach Learn Med. 2022; 34(2): 155–166. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Barrett EM, Belton A, Alpine LM: Supervision models in physiotherapy practice education: student and practice educator evaluations. Physiother Theory Pract. 2021; 37(11): 1185–1198. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Finstad I, Knutstad U, Havnes A, et al.: The paradox of an expected level: the assessment of nursing students during clinical practice – A qualitative study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022; 61: 103332. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. England A, Geers-van Gemeren S, Henner A, et al.: Clinical radiography education across Europe. Radiography (Lond). 2017; 23 Suppl 1: S7–S15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Brown RA, Crookes PA: How do expert clinicians assess student nurses competency during workplace experience? A modified nominal group approach to devising a guidance package. Collegian. 2017; 24(3): 219–225. Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Myers K, Bilyeu C, Covington K, et al.: Clinical teaching competencies in physical therapist education: a modified Delphi study. Phys Ther. 2022; 102(7): pzac063. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Bacon R, Williams LT, Grealish L, et al.: Competency-based assessment for clinical supervisors: design-based research on a web-delivered program. JMIR Res Protoc. 2015; 4(1): e26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[42] 42. Ferguson A, McAllister S, Lincoln M, et al.: Becoming familiar with competency-based student assessment: an evaluation of workshop outcomes. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010; 12(6): 545–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Mallik M, McGowan B: Issues in practice based learning in nursing in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: results from a multi professional scoping exercise. Nurse Educ Today. 2007; 27(1): 52–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Duffy K, Gillies A: Supervision and assessment: the new Nursing and Midwifery Council standards. Nurs Manag (Harrow). 2018; 25(3): 17–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Bacon R, Holmes K, Palermo C: Exploring subjectivity in competency-based assessment judgements of assessors. Nutr Diet. 2017; 74(4): 357–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Tassoni D, Kent F, Simpson J, et al.: Supporting health professional educators in the workplace: a scoping review. Med Teach. 2023; 45(1): 49–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[47] 47. Gorman CA, Rentsch JR: Evaluating frame-of-reference rater training effectiveness using performance schema accuracy. J Appl Psychol. 2009; 94(5): 1336–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI. 2020; 2020. Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Method. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK: Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010; 5: 69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[51] 51. Daudt HML, van Mossel C, Scott SJ: Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13(1): 48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[52] 52. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022; 20(4): 953–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[53] 53. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, et al.: Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1): 143. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[54] 54. Alpine L, Barrett E, Broderick J, et al.: Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: a scoping review protocol. 2022. http://www.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sjxhf

[55] 55. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Scoping reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual. 2017; 2015: 1–24. Reference Source

[56] 56. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al.: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 350: g7647. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[57] 57. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Education programmes on performance-based assessment for allied health and nursing clinical educators: A scoping review protocol

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Introduction

Background

The challenges and complexities of Performance-Based Assessment

Application of Performance-Based Assessment in healthcare professional education

Education programmes for Performance-Based Assessment

Rationale for a Scoping Review

Methods

Rationale for scoping review

Research question, objectives and purpose

Inclusion criteria

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Participants

Concept

Context

Search strategy

Table 2. Search strategy for EMBASE.

Sources of evidence selection

Data extraction

Data analysis and presentations

Study status

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!