Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework

By Helena M Daudt, C. van Mossel, S. J. Scott. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2013

1,726 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundScoping studies are increasingly common for broadly searching the literature on a specific topic, yet researchers lack an agreed-upon definition of and framework for the methodology. In 2005, Arksey and O’Malley offered a methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. In their subsequent work, Levac et al. responded to Arksey and O’Malley’s call for advances to their framework. Our paper builds on this collective work to further enhance the methodology.DiscussionThis paper begins with a background on what constitutes a scoping study, followed by a discussion about four primary subjects: (1) the types of questions for which Arksey and O’Malley’s framework is most appropriate, (2) a contribution to the discussion aimed at enhancing the six steps of Arskey and O’Malley’s framework, (3) the strengths and challenges of our experience working with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework as a large, inter-professional team, and (4) lessons learned. Our goal in this paper is to add to the discussion encouraged by Arksey and O’Malley to further enhance this methodology.SummaryPerforming a scoping study using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework was a valuable process for our research team even if how it was useful was unexpected. Based on our experience, we recommend researchers be aware of their expectations for how Arksey and O’Malley’s framework might be useful in relation to their research question, and remain flexible to clarify concepts and to revise the research question as the team becomes familiar with the literature. Questions portraying comparisons such as between interventions, programs, or approaches seem to be the most suitable to scoping studies. We also suggest assessing the quality of studies and conducting a trial of the method before fully embarking on the charting process in order to ensure consistency. The benefits of engaging a large, inter-professional team such as ours throughout every stage of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework far exceed the challenges and we recommend researchers consider the value of such a team. The strengths include breadth and depth of knowledge each team member brings to the study and time efficiencies. In our experience, the most significant challenges presented to our team were those related to consensus and resource limitations. Effective communication is key to the success of a large group. We propose that by clarifying the framework, the purposes of scoping studies are attainable and the definition is enriched.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology, General Health Professions

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2e76f5e9ca817148b356c88626f4faf1a30145d1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In General Health Professions

Citations in the corpus

A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews (2016, methodology): “(2013) discussed the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) framework, and in particular, the team’s experiences using it, in order to develop the methodology further [10].”
The Psychology of Mukbang Watching: A Scoping Review of the Academic and Non-academic Literature (2020, background): “…because of its different facilitations including the (i) ability to examine the extent and nature of the existing research on a particular topic, (ii) opportunity to summarize and disseminate research findings, and (iii) ability to determine research gaps in the literature (Daudt et al. 2013).”
Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. (2014, background): “proposed a revised definition: ‘‘scoping studies aim to map the literature on a particular topic or research area and provide an opportunity to identify key concepts, gaps in the research; and types and sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking, and research’’ [7].”
Scoping reviews: the PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting (2021, background): “There are a number of ways to interpret the idea of ‘evidence for practice’ although producing an overview of the ‘types and sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking and research’ (Daudt et al., 2013) features in more recent definitions of scoping reviews.”
From Arksey and O’Malley and Beyond: Customizations to enhance a team-based, mixed approach to scoping review methodology (2021, methodology): “- Link the research question and purpose - Frame refining the research question and search terms as an iterative process [6]”
Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. (2017, background): “There is also concern about the usefulness to practice or policy making if quality is not considered and the scoping review is done as a stand-alone project, rather than the first step in a larger endeavor (Daudt et al., 2013).”
Pro-environmental behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: A scoping review (2020, background): “The development of criteria is essential for literature reviews, as it allows researchers to gather only the most relevant publications (Daudt et al., 2013; Colquhoun et al., 2014).”
Developing creativity in higher education for 21st century learners: A protocol for a scoping review (2017, methodology): “The recommendations of both Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and Levac et al. (2010) and Daudt et al. (2013) recommend charting the data using a charting form.”
Emerging Adults’ Financial Well-being: A Scoping Review (2017, background): “The oldest data on emerging adults’ financial well-being were found in Easterlin et al. (1990), with data collection from 1965 to 1988. The most recent data were collected in 2014 (Tagliabue et al. 2015). Twelve studies collected financial well-being variable more than once (these were longitudina”