Loading…

Physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training: A scoping review of the literature

Assessment in medical education has changed over time to measure the evolving skills required of current medical practice. Physical and biophysical markers of assessment attempt to use technology to gain insight into medical trainees' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The authors conducted a sc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Medical teacher 2024-04, p.1-9
Main Authors: Miller, Danielle T, Michael, Sarah, Bell, Colin, Brevik, Cody H, Kaplan, Bonnie, Svoboda, Ellie, Kendall, John
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c257t-555bfef24376d7a2b5a4c9c7ba27e2053868b00a9cf83713b99805d6a78b76213
container_end_page 9
container_issue
container_start_page 1
container_title Medical teacher
container_volume
creator Miller, Danielle T
Michael, Sarah
Bell, Colin
Brevik, Cody H
Kaplan, Bonnie
Svoboda, Ellie
Kendall, John
description Assessment in medical education has changed over time to measure the evolving skills required of current medical practice. Physical and biophysical markers of assessment attempt to use technology to gain insight into medical trainees' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The authors conducted a scoping review to map the literature on the use of physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training. The authors searched seven databases on 1 August 2022, for publications that utilized physical or biophysical markers in the assessment of medical trainees (medical students, residents, fellows, and synonymous terms used in other countries). Physical or biophysical markers included: heart rate and heart rate variability, visual tracking and attention, pupillometry, hand motion analysis, skin conductivity, salivary cortisol, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The authors mapped the relevant literature using Bloom's taxonomy of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and extracted additional data including study design, study environment, and novice vs. expert differentiation from February to June 2023. Of 6,069 unique articles, 443 met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies assessed trainees using heart rate variability (  = 160, 36%) followed by visual attention (  = 143, 32%), hand motion analysis (  = 67, 15%), salivary cortisol (  = 67, 15%), fMRI (  = 29, 7%), skin conductivity (  = 26, 6%), fNIRs (  = 19, 4%), and pupillometry (  = 16, 4%). The majority of studies (  = 167, 38%) analyzed non-technical skills, followed by studies that analyzed technical skills (  = 155, 35%), knowledge (  = 114, 26%), and attitudinal skills (  = 61, 14%). 169 studies (38%) attempted to use physical or biophysical markers to differentiate between novice and expert. This review provides a comprehensive description of the current use of physical and biophysical markers in medical education training, including the current technology and skills assessed. Additionally, while physical and biophysical markers have the potential to augment current assessment in medical education, there remains significant gaps in research surrounding reliability, validity, cost, practicality, and educational impact of implementing these markers of assessment.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/0142159X.2024.2345269
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3049717754</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3049717754</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c257t-555bfef24376d7a2b5a4c9c7ba27e2053868b00a9cf83713b99805d6a78b76213</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kMlOwzAURS0EoqXwCSAv2aR4jGN2VcUkVYIFSN1ZtuNQQybsBNS_J6EtKz9L577hAHCJ0RyjDN0gzAjmcj0niLA5oYyTVB6BKWZpmuBMrI_BdGSSEZqAsxg_EEJcSn4KJjRLs4wTNAXFy2YbvdUl1HUOjW_aw7_S4dOFCJsC6hhdjJWrO-hrWLn8D-iC9rWv32_hAkbbtEMJg_v27mfMdBsHS9-5oLs-uHNwUugyuov9OwNv93evy8dk9fzwtFysEku46BLOuSlcQRgVaS40MVwzK60wmghHEB_3NghpaYuMCkyNlBnieapFZkRKMJ2B613fNjRfvYudqny0rix17Zo-KoqYFFgIzgaU71AbmhiDK1Qb_HD0VmGkRsXqoFiNitVe8ZC72o_ozaDiP3VwSn8BGgl3qg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3049717754</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training: A scoping review of the literature</title><source>Taylor and Francis:Jisc Collections:Taylor and Francis Read and Publish Agreement 2024-2025:Medical Collection (Reading list)</source><creator>Miller, Danielle T ; Michael, Sarah ; Bell, Colin ; Brevik, Cody H ; Kaplan, Bonnie ; Svoboda, Ellie ; Kendall, John</creator><creatorcontrib>Miller, Danielle T ; Michael, Sarah ; Bell, Colin ; Brevik, Cody H ; Kaplan, Bonnie ; Svoboda, Ellie ; Kendall, John</creatorcontrib><description>Assessment in medical education has changed over time to measure the evolving skills required of current medical practice. Physical and biophysical markers of assessment attempt to use technology to gain insight into medical trainees' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The authors conducted a scoping review to map the literature on the use of physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training. The authors searched seven databases on 1 August 2022, for publications that utilized physical or biophysical markers in the assessment of medical trainees (medical students, residents, fellows, and synonymous terms used in other countries). Physical or biophysical markers included: heart rate and heart rate variability, visual tracking and attention, pupillometry, hand motion analysis, skin conductivity, salivary cortisol, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The authors mapped the relevant literature using Bloom's taxonomy of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and extracted additional data including study design, study environment, and novice vs. expert differentiation from February to June 2023. Of 6,069 unique articles, 443 met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies assessed trainees using heart rate variability (  = 160, 36%) followed by visual attention (  = 143, 32%), hand motion analysis (  = 67, 15%), salivary cortisol (  = 67, 15%), fMRI (  = 29, 7%), skin conductivity (  = 26, 6%), fNIRs (  = 19, 4%), and pupillometry (  = 16, 4%). The majority of studies (  = 167, 38%) analyzed non-technical skills, followed by studies that analyzed technical skills (  = 155, 35%), knowledge (  = 114, 26%), and attitudinal skills (  = 61, 14%). 169 studies (38%) attempted to use physical or biophysical markers to differentiate between novice and expert. This review provides a comprehensive description of the current use of physical and biophysical markers in medical education training, including the current technology and skills assessed. Additionally, while physical and biophysical markers have the potential to augment current assessment in medical education, there remains significant gaps in research surrounding reliability, validity, cost, practicality, and educational impact of implementing these markers of assessment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0142-159X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1466-187X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2024.2345269</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38688520</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><ispartof>Medical teacher, 2024-04, p.1-9</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c257t-555bfef24376d7a2b5a4c9c7ba27e2053868b00a9cf83713b99805d6a78b76213</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38688520$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Miller, Danielle T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michael, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bell, Colin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brevik, Cody H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaplan, Bonnie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Svoboda, Ellie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kendall, John</creatorcontrib><title>Physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training: A scoping review of the literature</title><title>Medical teacher</title><addtitle>Med Teach</addtitle><description>Assessment in medical education has changed over time to measure the evolving skills required of current medical practice. Physical and biophysical markers of assessment attempt to use technology to gain insight into medical trainees' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The authors conducted a scoping review to map the literature on the use of physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training. The authors searched seven databases on 1 August 2022, for publications that utilized physical or biophysical markers in the assessment of medical trainees (medical students, residents, fellows, and synonymous terms used in other countries). Physical or biophysical markers included: heart rate and heart rate variability, visual tracking and attention, pupillometry, hand motion analysis, skin conductivity, salivary cortisol, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The authors mapped the relevant literature using Bloom's taxonomy of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and extracted additional data including study design, study environment, and novice vs. expert differentiation from February to June 2023. Of 6,069 unique articles, 443 met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies assessed trainees using heart rate variability (  = 160, 36%) followed by visual attention (  = 143, 32%), hand motion analysis (  = 67, 15%), salivary cortisol (  = 67, 15%), fMRI (  = 29, 7%), skin conductivity (  = 26, 6%), fNIRs (  = 19, 4%), and pupillometry (  = 16, 4%). The majority of studies (  = 167, 38%) analyzed non-technical skills, followed by studies that analyzed technical skills (  = 155, 35%), knowledge (  = 114, 26%), and attitudinal skills (  = 61, 14%). 169 studies (38%) attempted to use physical or biophysical markers to differentiate between novice and expert. This review provides a comprehensive description of the current use of physical and biophysical markers in medical education training, including the current technology and skills assessed. Additionally, while physical and biophysical markers have the potential to augment current assessment in medical education, there remains significant gaps in research surrounding reliability, validity, cost, practicality, and educational impact of implementing these markers of assessment.</description><issn>0142-159X</issn><issn>1466-187X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kMlOwzAURS0EoqXwCSAv2aR4jGN2VcUkVYIFSN1ZtuNQQybsBNS_J6EtKz9L577hAHCJ0RyjDN0gzAjmcj0niLA5oYyTVB6BKWZpmuBMrI_BdGSSEZqAsxg_EEJcSn4KJjRLs4wTNAXFy2YbvdUl1HUOjW_aw7_S4dOFCJsC6hhdjJWrO-hrWLn8D-iC9rWv32_hAkbbtEMJg_v27mfMdBsHS9-5oLs-uHNwUugyuov9OwNv93evy8dk9fzwtFysEku46BLOuSlcQRgVaS40MVwzK60wmghHEB_3NghpaYuMCkyNlBnieapFZkRKMJ2B613fNjRfvYudqny0rix17Zo-KoqYFFgIzgaU71AbmhiDK1Qb_HD0VmGkRsXqoFiNitVe8ZC72o_ozaDiP3VwSn8BGgl3qg</recordid><startdate>20240430</startdate><enddate>20240430</enddate><creator>Miller, Danielle T</creator><creator>Michael, Sarah</creator><creator>Bell, Colin</creator><creator>Brevik, Cody H</creator><creator>Kaplan, Bonnie</creator><creator>Svoboda, Ellie</creator><creator>Kendall, John</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240430</creationdate><title>Physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training: A scoping review of the literature</title><author>Miller, Danielle T ; Michael, Sarah ; Bell, Colin ; Brevik, Cody H ; Kaplan, Bonnie ; Svoboda, Ellie ; Kendall, John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c257t-555bfef24376d7a2b5a4c9c7ba27e2053868b00a9cf83713b99805d6a78b76213</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miller, Danielle T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michael, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bell, Colin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brevik, Cody H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaplan, Bonnie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Svoboda, Ellie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kendall, John</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical teacher</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miller, Danielle T</au><au>Michael, Sarah</au><au>Bell, Colin</au><au>Brevik, Cody H</au><au>Kaplan, Bonnie</au><au>Svoboda, Ellie</au><au>Kendall, John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training: A scoping review of the literature</atitle><jtitle>Medical teacher</jtitle><addtitle>Med Teach</addtitle><date>2024-04-30</date><risdate>2024</risdate><spage>1</spage><epage>9</epage><pages>1-9</pages><issn>0142-159X</issn><eissn>1466-187X</eissn><abstract>Assessment in medical education has changed over time to measure the evolving skills required of current medical practice. Physical and biophysical markers of assessment attempt to use technology to gain insight into medical trainees' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The authors conducted a scoping review to map the literature on the use of physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training. The authors searched seven databases on 1 August 2022, for publications that utilized physical or biophysical markers in the assessment of medical trainees (medical students, residents, fellows, and synonymous terms used in other countries). Physical or biophysical markers included: heart rate and heart rate variability, visual tracking and attention, pupillometry, hand motion analysis, skin conductivity, salivary cortisol, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The authors mapped the relevant literature using Bloom's taxonomy of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and extracted additional data including study design, study environment, and novice vs. expert differentiation from February to June 2023. Of 6,069 unique articles, 443 met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies assessed trainees using heart rate variability (  = 160, 36%) followed by visual attention (  = 143, 32%), hand motion analysis (  = 67, 15%), salivary cortisol (  = 67, 15%), fMRI (  = 29, 7%), skin conductivity (  = 26, 6%), fNIRs (  = 19, 4%), and pupillometry (  = 16, 4%). The majority of studies (  = 167, 38%) analyzed non-technical skills, followed by studies that analyzed technical skills (  = 155, 35%), knowledge (  = 114, 26%), and attitudinal skills (  = 61, 14%). 169 studies (38%) attempted to use physical or biophysical markers to differentiate between novice and expert. This review provides a comprehensive description of the current use of physical and biophysical markers in medical education training, including the current technology and skills assessed. Additionally, while physical and biophysical markers have the potential to augment current assessment in medical education, there remains significant gaps in research surrounding reliability, validity, cost, practicality, and educational impact of implementing these markers of assessment.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>38688520</pmid><doi>10.1080/0142159X.2024.2345269</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0142-159X
ispartof Medical teacher, 2024-04, p.1-9
issn 0142-159X
1466-187X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3049717754
source Taylor and Francis:Jisc Collections:Taylor and Francis Read and Publish Agreement 2024-2025:Medical Collection (Reading list)
title Physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training: A scoping review of the literature
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T08%3A47%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Physical%20and%20biophysical%20markers%20of%20assessment%20in%20medical%20training:%20A%20scoping%20review%20of%20the%20literature&rft.jtitle=Medical%20teacher&rft.au=Miller,%20Danielle%20T&rft.date=2024-04-30&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=9&rft.pages=1-9&rft.issn=0142-159X&rft.eissn=1466-187X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2345269&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3049717754%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c257t-555bfef24376d7a2b5a4c9c7ba27e2053868b00a9cf83713b99805d6a78b76213%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3049717754&rft_id=info:pmid/38688520&rfr_iscdi=true