METHOD: An expert panel of educators was recruited and completed a literature review of current evidence of teaching and learning and assessment methods in healthcare training, with an emphasis on health care, general optometry and CLE.
RESULTS: No direct evidence of benefit of teaching and learning and assessment methods in CLE were found. There was evidence for the benefit of some teaching and learning and assessment methods in other disciplines that could be transferable to CLE and could help students meet the intended learning outcomes. There was evidence that the following teaching and learning methods helped health-care and general optometry students meet the intended learning outcomes; clinical teaching and learning, flipped classrooms, clinical skills videos and clerkships. For assessment these methods were; essays, case presentations, objective structured clinical examinations, self-assessment and formative assessment. There was no evidence that the following teaching and learning methods helped health-care and general optometry students meet the intended learning outcomes; journal clubs and case discussions. Nor was any evidence found for the following assessment methods; multiple-choice questions, oral examinations, objective structured practical examinations, holistic assessment, and summative assessment.
CONCLUSION: Investigation into the efficacy of common teaching and learning and assessment methods in CLE are required and would be beneficial for the entire community of contact lens educators, and other disciplines that wish to adapt this approach of evidence-based teaching.
METHODS: we searched six electronic databases, which include PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, SciELO, ERIC and AgeLine, between January 2000 and April 2022. Reference lists of the included papers were also manually searched. The COSMIN (CONsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) guidelines were used to evaluate the measurement properties and the quality of evidence for each instrument.
RESULTS: 13 instruments from 29 studies were included for evaluation of their measurement properties. Of the 13 reviewed, 6 were on the ability to learn, 3 were on the ability to grow and 4 were on the ability to make decisions. The review found no single instrument that measured all three constructs in unidimensional or multidimensional scales. Many of the instruments were found to have sufficient overall rating on content validity, structural validity, internal consistency and cross-cultural validity. The quality of evidence was rated as low due to a limited number of related validation studies.
CONCLUSION: a few existing instruments to assess the ability to learn, grow and make decisions of older people can be identified in the literature. Further research is needed in validating them against functional, real-world outcomes.