Table 1 Characteristics of included...

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

Author and year	Country	Study design	Study aims/Objectives
1. Cross et al. (2001)	United Kingdom	Mixed methods – experimental pre-post intervention and correlation study of ratings, comparing against two assessment tools	To explore if (1) CEs vary in their ability to discriminate between levels of students' performance, (2) training makes a difference to CE's decision making and (3) assessment decisions are influenced by the assessment tool when comparing two different clinical assessment forms
2. Vendrely and Carter (2004)	United States of America	Quantitative – correlation study comparing assessment scores of four different training options	To compare four different assessment training options to determine impact on rating students' performances Clinical Instructor Instrument (CPI) training Clinical Instructor Education and Credentialing Programme (CIECP) Both CIECP and CPI training and No training programme.
3. Ferguson et al. (2010)	Australia	Mixed methods – experimental pre-post intervention	To determine if a standardized training workshop increased clinical educators' confidence and understanding of a new clinical assessment tool (COMPASS)
4. Durham et al. (2012)	United Kingdom	Mixed methods – pilot study of a new training programme	To evaluate a new education programme aimed at preparing and supporting sign-off mentors (SOM) for student final practice assessment
5. Bacon et al. (2015)	Australia	Mixed methods – pilot study of a new online training programme	To explore the potential for a web-based programme to support clinical educators' assessments practices
6. Bacon et al. (2017)	Australia	Mixed methods – experimental pre-post intervention	To measure the variation in clinical educators' judgements of a student's performance and explore the influence of group discussion on their judgements
7. Moline et al. (2018)	Canada	Quantitative – experimental pre-post intervention	To assess the effectiveness of two workshops designed to improve the confidence and placement supervision skills of CEs in the areas of communication and feedback (Workshop A), competency assessment and cultural competency (Workshop B)
8. Alpine et al. (2021)	Ireland	Quantitative – prospective cross- sectional, single-group pre-post intervention	To evaluate the impact of a clinical educator training workshop on differentiating grades of student's performances
9. Milne et al. (2022)	Australia	Quantitative –quasi-experimental pre-post intervention	To appraise the impact of a one-day workshop on the perceived knowledge, skills, attributes, ability to use the APP and overall confidence of clinical educators to assess students' performances

Author and year	Country	Study design	Study aims/Objectives
1. Cross et al. (2001)	United Kingdom	Mixed methods – experimental pre-post intervention and correlation study of ratings, comparing against two assessment tools	To explore if (1) CEs vary in their ability to discriminate between levels of students' performance, (2) training makes a difference to CE's decision making and (3) assessment decisions are influenced by the assessment tool when comparing two different clinical assessment forms
2. Vendrely and Carter (2004)	United States of America	Quantitative – correlation study comparing assessment scores of four different training options	To compare four different assessment training options to determine impact on rating students' performances Clinical Instructor Instrument (CPI) training Clinical Instructor Education and Credentialing Programme (CIECP) Both CIECP and CPI training and No training programme.
3. Ferguson et al. (2010)	Australia	Mixed methods – experimental pre-post intervention	To determine if a standardized training workshop increased clinical educators' confidence and understanding of a new clinical assessment tool (COMPASS)
4. Durham et al. (2012)	United Kingdom	Mixed methods – pilot study of a new training programme	To evaluate a new education programme aimed at preparing and supporting sign-off mentors (SOM) for student final practice assessment
5. Bacon et al. (2015)	Australia	Mixed methods – pilot study of a new online training programme	To explore the potential for a web-based programme to support clinical educators' assessments practices
6. Bacon et al. (2017)	Australia	Mixed methods – experimental pre-post intervention	To measure the variation in clinical educators' judgements of a student's performance and explore the influence of group discussion on their judgements
7. Moline et al. (2018)	Canada	Quantitative – experimental pre-post intervention	To assess the effectiveness of two workshops designed to improve the confidence and placement supervision skills of CEs in the areas of communication and feedback (Workshop A), competency assessment and cultural competency (Workshop B)
8. Alpine et al. (2021)	Ireland	Quantitative – prospective cross- sectional, single-group pre-post intervention	To evaluate the impact of a clinical educator training workshop on differentiating grades of student's performances
9. Milne et al. (2022)	Australia	Quantitative –quasi-experimental pre-post intervention	To appraise the impact of a one-day workshop on the perceived knowledge, skills, attributes, ability to use the APP and overall confidence of clinical educators to assess students' performances

Note(s): Abbreviations: APP - Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice, CE - Clinical Educator, CIECP - Clinical Instructor Education and Credentialing Program, CPI - Clinical Performance Instrument, COMPASS - Competency Assessment in Speech Pathology, SOM - sign-off mentor

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable