Selecting Instruments for Measuring the Clinical Learning Environment of Medical Education: A 4-Domain Framework

Learning environments shape the experiences of learners and practitioners, making them an important component of program evaluation. However, educators find it challenging to decide whether to measure clinical learning environments with existing instruments or to design their own new instrument and, if using an existing instrument, which to choose. To assist educators with these decisions, the authors compared clinical learning environment instruments based on their characteristics, underlying constructs, and degree to which items reflect 4 domains (personal, social, organizational, material) from a recently developed model for conceptualizing learning environments in the health professions. Building on 3 prior literature reviews as well as a literature search, the authors identified 6 clinically oriented learning environment instruments designed for medical education. They collected key information about each instrument (e.g., number of items and subscales, conceptual frameworks, operational definitions of the learning environment) and coded items from each instrument according to the 4 domains. The 6 instruments varied in number of items, underlying constructs, subscales, definitions of clinical learning environment, and domain coverage. Most instruments focused heavily on the organizational and social domains and less on the personal and material domains (half omitted the material domain entirely). The variations in these instruments suggest that educators might consider several guiding questions. How will they define the learning environment and which theoretical lens is most applicable (e.g., personal vitality, sociocultural learning theory)? What aspects or domains of the learning environment do they most wish to capture (e.g., personal support, social interactions, organizational culture, access to resources)? How comprehensive do they want the instrument to be (and correspondingly how much time do they expect people to devote to completing the instrument and how frequently)? Whose perspective do they wish to evaluate (e.g., student, resident, fellow, attending, team, patient)? Each of these considerations is addressed.