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 [53]
Barnhoorn’s multi-level professionalism framework		One [78],
Goldie’s social psychological levels of analysis		Eight [52, 53, 62, 79–83]
Kegan’s constructive development theory		Four [63, 80, 81, 83]
Pratt’s theory on professional identity formation		Three [18, 62, 63]
Wald’s theory on professional identity formation		Five [65, 81, 84–86]
Cruess et al.’s schematic representations of professional identity formation and socialization		Nine [19, 53, 62, 84, 87–91]
Krishna’s Ring Theory of Personhood		Three [13, 17, 28]
Principles	Information considered (in the context of theories)	Methods of assessment
longitudinal assessments [5, 29, 63, 78, 83, 85, 88, 90, 92–103]	Personal [13, 17, 19, 28, 52, 53, 60, 65, 66, 78, 80, 81, 83, 88, 89, 91], practical [13, 66, 78, 88], clinical [17, 28, 52, 60, 65, 81, 82, 87–89, 91], environmental [13, 17, 18, 28, 52, 58, 60, 63, 65, 78, 81–83, 87], academic [17, 81], research [17, 61], systems-based considerations [13, 60, 81, 87, 88, 90];	summative assessments [104],
multidimensional approach [87, 97, 104, 105]	the medical student’s social [28, 60, 65, 66, 79], personal [13, 17–19, 28, 52–54, 63, 66, 81, 87, 89], demographic, contextual, academic, research, clinical, and professional values [19, 62, 63, 65, 66, 78–81, 83, 84, 87–91], their beliefs [13, 17, 18, 28, 52–54, 60–62, 65, 78, 80–83], principles [28, 52, 60, 62, 65, 80, 87, 89], experiences [13, 17, 18, 28, 52, 54, 60–63, 65, 66, 78, 80–82, 89–91], competencies [19, 52, 53, 62, 63, 66, 79, 81, 84, 87–89], and goals [13, 17, 19, 28, 52, 54, 81, 82, 89, 90]	formative assessments [63, 87, 88, 96]
multimodal approach to assessing PIF [5, 19, 29, 63, 87, 91, 95, 96, 100, 104, 106–111]	environmental conditions, the requirements [87], and influences [62, 66, 83, 89] within the practice setting	use of mixed methods [19, 29, 78, 80, 100, 103, 106, 107, 112–114]
site-specific assessments [107, 112, 115]	the impact of the formal [18, 52, 53, 65, 78, 81, 83, 87], informal [18, 65, 78, 81–83, 87], and hidden curriculum [18, 53, 65, 66, 78, 80, 81, 83, 87]
assessments at multiple time points [80, 83, 85, 92, 107, 112, 113]	the program and practice expectations [87, 88] on conduct, competencies, attitudes, and goal [13, 52]
use of multiple assessors [29, 81, 85, 87, 100, 104, 106, 107, 110–113, 116, 117]	the medical student’s ethical position [63, 81, 100, 109, 112, 114, 116, 118–121]
	The medical student’s moral position [80, 84, 87, 95, 100, 114, 118, 119]
	The medical student’s professional position [53, 63, 80, 81, 90, 91, 98–102, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 122]
	medical student’s values, beliefs and principles - If specific to med student: 17, 18, 19, 28, 52, 53, 54, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 81 -If not: 78, 79, 13
	The medical student’s actions, attitudes [63], conduct, reflective practice [63] and support mechanisms [63] over time
	the demographical [91], historical [83], experiential [63, 90] and environmental factors [17, 18, 52, 53, 63, 65, 81, 83, 90] influencing concepts of identity