Table 3 Principles, Information considered and methods of assessments

Ethical Framework

Number of articles employing it and references in brackets

Korthagen’s level of change model

One [52]

Barnhoorn’s multi-level professionalism framework

One [79],

Goldie’s social psychological levels of analysis

Eight [51, 52, 62, 78, 80,81,82,83]

Kegan’s constructive development theory

Four [63, 78, 81, 82]

Pratt’s theory on professional identity formation

Three [16, 62, 63]

Wald’s theory on professional identity formation

Five [65, 82, 84,85,86]

Cruess et al’s schematic representations of professional identity formation and socialization

Nine [17, 52, 62, 84, 87,88,89,90,91]

Krishna’s Ring Theory of Personhood

Three [13, 25, 27]

Principles

Information considered (in the context of theories)

Methods of assessment

longitudinal assessments [5, 28, 63, 78, 79, 85, 88, 90, 92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103]

Personal [13, 17, 25, 27, 51, 52, 60, 65, 66, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 89, 91], practical [13, 66, 79, 88], clinical [25, 27, 51, 60, 65, 82, 83, 87,88,89, 91], environmental [13, 16, 25, 27, 51, 60, 63, 65, 78, 79, 82, 83, 87], academic [25, 82], research [25, 61], systems-based [13, 60, 82, 87, 88, 90];

summative assessments [104]

multidimensional approach [87, 97, 104, 105]

the medical student’s social [27, 60, 65, 66, 80], personal [13, 16, 17, 25, 27, 51,52,53, 63, 66, 82, 87, 89], demographic, contextual, academic, research, clinical, and professional values [17, 62, 63, 65, 66, 78,79,80,81,82, 84, 87,88,89,90,91], their beliefs [13, 16, 25, 27, 51,52,53, 60,61,62, 65, 78, 79, 81,82,83], principles [27, 51, 60, 62, 65, 81, 87, 89], experiences [13, 16, 25, 27, 51, 53, 60,61,62,63, 65, 66, 79, 81,82,83, 89,90,91],   competencies [17, 51, 52, 62, 63, 66, 80, 82, 84, 87,88,89], and goals [13, 17, 25, 27, 51, 53, 82, 83, 89, 90]

formative assessments [63, 87, 88, 96]

multimodal approach to assessing PIF [5, 17, 28, 63, 87, 91, 95, 96, 100, 104, 106,107,108,109,110,111]

environmental conditions, the requirements [87], and influences [62, 66, 78, 89] within the practice setting

use of mixed methods [17, 28, 79, 81, 100, 103, 106, 107, 112,113,114].

site-specific assessments [107, 113, 115]

the impact of the formal [16, 51, 52, 65, 78, 79, 82, 87], informal [16, 65, 78, 79, 82, 83, 87], and hidden curriculum [16, 52, 65, 66, 78, 79, 81, 82, 87] 

assessments at multiple time points [78, 81, 85, 92, 107, 113, 114]

the program and practice expectations [87, 88] on conduct, competencies, attitudes, and goal [13, 51]

use of multiple assessors [28, 82, 85, 87, 100, 104, 106, 107, 110, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117]

the medical student’s ethical position [63, 82, 100, 109, 112, 113, 116, 118,119,120,121]

The medical student’s moral position [81, 84, 87, 95, 100, 112, 118, 119]

The medical student’s professional position [52, 63, 81, 82, 90, 91, 98,99,100,101,102, 106, 108, 109, 111,112,113, 122]

Medical student’s values, beliefs and principles‐ If specific to med student: [16, 17, 25, 27, 51,52,53, 62, 63, 65, 66, 78,79,80,81,82, 84, 87, 88, 90, 91]‐ If not: [13, 60, 61]

The medical student’s actions, attitudes [63], conduct, reflective practice [63] and support mechanisms [63] over time

the demographical [84], historical [78], experiential [63, 90] and environmental factors [16, 25, 51, 52, 63, 65, 78, 82, 90] influencing concepts of identity