RIME Foreword: What Constitutes Science in Educational Research? Applying Rigor in Our Research Approaches

Park, Yoon Soo; Zaidi, Zareen; O’Brien, Bridget

doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000003636

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, few behavioral theories distinguish between behavior adoption and abandonment, including the theories on which CPD-REACTION is based [ 78 ]. Future research should distinguish between the two and develop theories that support both types of behavior change [ 79 , 80 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of the CPD-REACTION Questionnaire to Evaluate Continuing Professional Development Activities for Health Professionals: Systematic Review

Ayivi-Vinz¹,

Kanyinga²,

Bergeron³

et al. 2022

JMIR Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Continuing professional development (CPD) is essential for physicians to maintain and enhance their knowledge, competence, skills, and performance. Web-based CPD plays an essential role. However, validated theory–informed measures of their impact are lacking. The CPD-REACTION questionnaire is a validated theory–informed tool that evaluates the impact of CPD activities on clinicians’ behavioral intentions. Objective We aimed to review the use of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire, which measures the impact of CPD activities on health professionals’ intentions to change clinical behavior. We examined CPD activity characteristics, ranges of intention, mean scores, score distributions, and psychometric properties. Methods We conducted a systematic review informed by the Cochrane review methodology. We searched 8 databases from January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2021. Gray literature was identified using Google Scholar and Research Gate. Eligibility criteria included all health care professionals, any study design, and participants’ completion of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire either before, after, or before and after a CPD activity. Study selection, data extraction, and study quality evaluation were independently performed by 2 reviewers. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, the CPD activity (eg, targeted clinical behavior and format), and CPD-REACTION use. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. Data extracted were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Student t test (2-tailed) for bivariate analysis. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Results Overall, 65 citations were eligible and referred to 52 primary studies. The number of primary studies reporting the use of CPD-REACTION has increased continuously since 2014 from 1 to 16 publications per year (2021). It is available in English, French, Spanish, and Dutch. Most of the studies were conducted in Canada (30/52, 58%). Furthermore, 40 different clinical behaviors were identified. The most common CPD format was e-learning (34/52, 65%). The original version of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire was used in 31 of 52 studies, and an adapted version in 18 of 52 studies. In addition, 31% (16/52) of the studies measured both the pre- and postintervention scores. In 22 studies, CPD providers were university-based. Most studies targeted interprofessional groups of health professionals (31/52, 60%). Conclusions The use of CPD-REACTION has increased rapidly and across a wide range of clinical behaviors and formats, including a web-based format. Further research should investigate the most effective way to adapt the CPD-REACTION questionnaire to a variety of clinical behaviors and contexts. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42018116492; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=116492

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of the CPD-REACTION Questionnaire to Evaluate Continuing Professional Development Activities for Health Professionals: Systematic Review

Ayivi-Vinz¹,

Kanyinga²,

Bergeron³

et al. 2022

JMIR Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scientific research interplays between research questions, research approaches, and research answers. 23 As a research approach is also based on the dynamic relationship between epistemology, research design, and methodologies, we should not focus on one domain but rather the interaction between them in building a collective set of knowledge in HPE. Prior literature 48 describes how common approaches to mixed methods studies focus too heavily on the methods and data, rather than the relationship between the research question and the logic of inquiry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 Medical educators recognized that diverse methodologies including varying epistemological assumptions and their relevant standards of rigor were needed to advance the field. [12][13][14][15]18,20,21 In the foreword to the 2020 Research in Medical Education supplement of Academic Medicine, Park and colleagues 23 noted the importance of scientific rigor in the diverse research approaches in HPE research that comprises methodological processes including epistemological assumptions, research designs, and research methods (data collection, analysis, and interpretation). Although they noted the variety of standards of rigor based on the elements of research methodologies, they argued that standards of rigor should be implemented and reported in research papers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Methodologies in Health Professions Education Publications: Breadth and Rigor

Han¹,

Youm²,

Tucker³

et al. 2022

Academic Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Research methodologies represent assumptions about knowledge and ways of knowing. Diverse research methodologies and methodological standards for rigor are essential in shaping the collective set of knowledge in health professions education (HPE). Given this relationship between methodologies and knowledge, it is important to understand the breadth of research methodologies and their rigor in HPE research publications. However, there are limited studies examining these questions. This study synthesized current trends in methodologies and rigor in HPE papers to inform how evidence is gathered and collectively shapes knowledge in HPE. Method This descriptive quantitative study used stepwise stratified cluster random sampling to analyze 90 papers from 15 HPE journals published in 2018 and 2019. Using a research design codebook, the authors conducted group coding processes for fidelity, response process validity, and rater agreement; an index quantifying methodological rigor was developed and applied for each paper. Results Over half of research methodologies were quantitative (51%), followed by qualitative (28%), and mixed methods (20%). No quantitative and mixed methods papers reported an epistemological approach. All qualitative papers that reported an epistemological approach (48%) used social constructivism. Most papers included participants from North America (49%) and Europe (20%). The majority of papers did not specify participant sampling strategies (56%) or a rationale for sample size (80%). Among those reported, most studies (81%) collected data within 1 year. The average rigor score of the papers was 56% (SD = 17). Rigor scores varied by journal categories and research methodologies. Rigor scores differed between general HPE journals and discipline-specific journals. Qualitative papers had significantly higher rigor scores than quantitative and mixed methods papers. Conclusions This review of methodological breadth and rigor in HPE papers raises awareness in addressing methodological gaps and calls for future research on how the authors shape the nature of knowledge in HPE.

show abstract

“…In the 2021 RIME forward, the RIME committee’s current, past, and future chairs posed the following question to the medical education research community: “What steps have we taken to advance scholarship that dismantles systems of oppression and brings marginalized voices to the forefront?” 1 The chairs raised this question because they were concerned that medical education research is steeped in traditions that have historically excluded marginalized voices at the level of both researcher and participant.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their effort to direct our community to the importance of this topic, in the 2021 RIME forward, Park et al 1 challenged the medical education research community to “question traditional research practices.” They suggested that we embrace new approaches that seek to disrupt the status quo in social science research and begin to reimagine centering the voices and experiences of marginalized individuals and groups. As a result of this call to action, many of the authors of the papers accepted in the 2022 RIME supplement incorporated a critical stance into their research.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Centering Criticality in Medical Education Research: A Synthesis of the 2022 RIME Papers

Wyatt¹,

Ho²

2022

Academic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RIME Foreword: What Constitutes Science in Educational Research? Applying Rigor in Our Research Approaches

Cited by 8 publications

References 32 publications

Use of the CPD-REACTION Questionnaire to Evaluate Continuing Professional Development Activities for Health Professionals: Systematic Review

Use of the CPD-REACTION Questionnaire to Evaluate Continuing Professional Development Activities for Health Professionals: Systematic Review

Research Methodologies in Health Professions Education Publications: Breadth and Rigor

Centering Criticality in Medical Education Research: A Synthesis of the 2022 RIME Papers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About