H. Han is associate professor and director of postdoctoral programs, Department of Medical Education, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Illinois; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7286-2473 .
J. Youm is associate dean of education compliance and quality, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California.
Acad Med. 2022 Nov 1;97(11S):S54-S62. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004911. Epub 2022 Aug 9.
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.
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.
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.
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.
研究方法代表了对知识和认知方式的假设。在塑造健康职业教育（HPE）的知识体系中，多样化的研究方法和严格的方法标准是必不可少的。鉴于方法与知识之间的这种关系，了解 HPE 研究出版物中研究方法的广泛程度及其严谨性非常重要。然而，针对这些问题的研究有限。本研究综合了 HPE 论文中当前方法和严谨性的趋势，以了解如何收集证据并共同塑造 HPE 中的知识。
本描述性定量研究使用逐步分层聚类随机抽样分析了 2018 年和 2019 年 15 种 HPE 期刊上发表的 90 篇论文。作者使用研究设计代码簿对保真度、反应过程有效性和评分者一致性进行了分组编码；为每篇论文开发并应用了一个量化方法严谨性的指数。
超过一半的研究方法是定量的（51%），其次是定性的（28%）和混合方法的（20%）。没有定量和混合方法的论文报告了认识论方法。所有报告了认识论方法的定性论文（48%）都使用了社会建构主义。大多数论文的参与者来自北美（49%）和欧洲（20%）。大多数论文没有具体说明参与者抽样策略（56%）或样本量的理由（80%）。在报告的研究中，大多数研究（81%）在一年内收集数据。论文的平均严谨性评分为 56%（SD=17）。期刊类别和研究方法影响严谨性评分。一般 HPE 期刊和学科特定期刊的严谨性评分存在差异。定性论文的严谨性评分明显高于定量和混合方法论文。
本研究审查了 HPE 论文中方法的广度和严谨性，提高了对解决方法差距的认识，并呼吁未来研究作者如何塑造 HPE 中的知识性质。
