Preprints.org logo
Preprint
Study Protocol

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Curriculum Design for Continuing Professional Education Across Forensic Disciplines: A Scoping Review Protocol

Submitted:

04 October 2026

Posted:

07 October 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

Introduction: Continuing professional education in forensic practice requires curricula that address disciplinary expertise, interpretation, documentation, and communication while remaining responsive to changing professional needs. This scoping review aims to map how continuing professional education curricula are designed, delivered, assessed, evaluated, and quality-assured across forensic disciplines, including their relationship to ongoing professional competence. Accreditation, certification, and governance will be examined in relation to how they shape educational arrangements. Methods: The review will follow Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework, incorporating Levac and colleagues’ refinements and JBI guidance. Reporting will follow PRISMA-ScR and PRISMA-S. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and APA PsycINFO will be searched from inception to the final search date, with reference-list searching providing additional sources. Inclusion will be restricted to English-language publications without geographical restrictions. Eligible sources will address continuing professional education or competence maintenance among qualified or practicing forensic professionals and provide substantive information on curriculum design or educational assurance. Sources concerning only undergraduate, pre-licensure, entry-to-practice, or initial specialist education will be excluded unless a separable continuing-development component is reported. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts using Covidence, with disagreements resolved through discussion or a third reviewer. A standardized charting form will be piloted on at least five eligible sources; one reviewer will chart each source, and a second will verify all entries. Results and Analysis: Data will be summarized descriptively and synthesized narratively across the following: learning needs assessment; competencies and objectives; curriculum content and structure; teaching and implementation; assessment and feedback; evaluation and revision; and educational quality assurance. Reported outcomes will be mapped to the four Kirkpatrick levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Measurement methods and follow-up periods will be retained to distinguish immediate learning outcomes from retained competence and workplace application. The synthesis will identify shared educational elements, disciplinary variations, accessibility barriers, and reporting or evaluation gaps to inform subsequent curriculum development. Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not anticipated because the review will analyze published literature without collecting identifiable participant data. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, relevant professional meetings, and curriculum design summaries for educators, practitioners, professional associations, accrediting organizations, and forensic service leaders.

Keywords: 
forensic education
;  
continuing professional education
;  
curriculum design
;  
professional competence
;  
competence maintenance
;  
educational assessment
;  
quality assurance
;  
scoping review
Subject: 
Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Pathology and Pathobiology

Introduction

Background

Forensic professionals must apply scientific and technical knowledge within an investigative and legal environment. Education, therefore, needs to support not only disciplinary expertise but also defensible interpretation, documentation, and communication. Tilstone’s discussion of education and assessment highlighted the relationship between scientific foundations, professional training, and institutional responsibility for maintaining performance. More recent forensic toxicology proposals connect modular knowledge development with continuing professional development, analytical practice, mentoring, and progression through professional roles. [1,2]
The educational challenge is consequently one of curriculum design: determining what practitioners need to learn, how learning should be organized, how achievement should be assessed, and how the curriculum should remain relevant as practice changes. ANSI/ASTM E2917-24a addresses practitioner training, continuing education, and professional development programs, while the educational literature advocates closer links among research, teaching methods, assessment, and professional practice. These contributions provide reasons to examine the organization of education rather than to treat attendance at educational activities as a sufficient account of professional development. [3,4]
Different disciplines offer examples of the components that such an examination should capture. A survey of forensic DNA laboratory training described readings, supervised practice, mock casework, report writing, practical tests, and mock testimony, as well as shared responsibility for training and remediation. Although this survey concerns initial workplace training, it illustrates the importance of examining content, delivery, and assessment together rather than recording only course titles. Communication is also a substantive educational requirement: Magni and Pitts argue that forensic curricula should prepare practitioners to explain scientific findings, limitations, and uncertainty to non-specialist audiences. [5,6]
Curricula must also respond to professional tasks and organizational expectations. Martynenko’s comparative analysis of forensic expert training and certification proposes more coherent arrangements for education, assessment, and individual professional development. In general toxicology, Soucy and colleagues used practice analysis to update domains, tasks, and knowledge and to inform examination specifications. Although this work concerns general toxicology, it illustrates a practice-linked approach to curriculum and assessment design rather than a forensic-specific curriculum. [7,8]
Evaluation requires similar care. Sahu and colleagues reported improvements in immediate responses to questionnaires among resident doctors after medicolegal training, but explicitly noted that retention was not assessed and that increased knowledge could not be equated with improved practice. This distinction is important when interpreting short courses, refresher programs, and professional development requirements. Curricula may have explicit learning objectives yet lack evidence that learners retain the relevant skills or apply them during casework. [9]
Educational quality assurance operates alongside, but is not interchangeable with, the accreditation of forensic services. Cusack describes harmonization efforts that involve forensic procedures, specialist training, and teaching, while distinguishing service accreditation from individual practitioners' requirements. Experience from an accredited Belgian forensic pathology service further illustrates the need to translate guidance into local work instructions, support staff training, and review performance over time. Conversely, McCartney and Nsiah Amoako question whether accreditation alone adequately captures quality throughout the forensic process and emphasize resource constraints and organizational culture. These accounts support the examination of the specific object, purpose, and educational implications of each assurance mechanism. [10,11,12]

Objectives and Rationale

The primary objective is to map curriculum design for continuing professional education across forensic disciplines, including how curricula address professional learning needs, support competence maintenance, and connect with educational quality assurance. The review will examine the relationships among needs assessment, competencies, learning objectives, content, teaching, assessment, implementation, and evaluation. Accreditation, certification, and governance will be considered where they shape these educational arrangements, rather than as substitutes for curriculum design.
Specifically, the review will identify the practitioner groups and settings served; describe how learning needs and objectives are established; map content, sequencing, and delivery approaches; characterize assessment, feedback, and remediation; examine the evaluation and updating of curricula; and describe the bodies and processes responsible for educational approval, recognition, and oversight. It will also identify disciplinary differences, shared educational elements, accessibility barriers, and gaps in reporting or evaluation.
A scoping review is appropriate because the evidence may include evaluated interventions, program descriptions, competency frameworks, professional requirements, and organizational guidance. These sources answer different questions and will not be treated as equivalent evidence of effectiveness. The intended contribution is an evidence map that can inform subsequent curriculum development and evaluation, not a predetermined international curriculum, credit requirement, or accreditation scheme [13,14,15].

Methods

Protocol Design

The review will use Arksey and O’Malley’s five core stages, incorporating Levac and colleagues’ refinements concerning an explicit review purpose, iterative team-based study selection and charting, and combined numerical and qualitative synthesis. JBI guidance will inform the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) criteria and operational review procedures. The completed review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and searches will be reported using PRISMA-S [13,14,15,16,17].
The protocol will be registered in preprints.org. Any changes to eligibility, information sources, charting, or analysis will be dated, justified, and reported in the final review. Searches or other activities completed before registration will be identified as such. Curriculum implementation and validation through a separate consensus study are outside the scope of this review.

Stage 1: Identifying the Research Question

Review Scope

The review concerns education undertaken after entry into professional practice to maintain, update, or extend forensic competence. It encompasses structured continuing education, workplace learning, refresher training, advanced professional development, and assessment-linked learning. The focus includes forensic medicine and pathology, clinical forensic practice, toxicology, biology and genetics, anthropology, odontology, nursing, psychiatry, and psychology, where relevant to forensic evidence, crime-scene investigation, pattern and trace evidence, and digital and multimedia forensics.
Undergraduate, pre-licensure, and initial specialist or entry-to-practice training will not be included unless a separable continuing development component is reported. Professional status alone will not establish eligibility: a survey of practicing supervisors that describes only the initial training of new entrants will be excluded from the review. Conversely, role-specific refresher or continuing medicolegal education for qualified clinicians may be eligible when it directly addresses the recovery, preservation, interpretation, or communication of forensic evidence. General education on healthcare law or professional negligence without a substantive forensic practice component will be excluded.

Research Questions

Primary question: How are curricula for continuing professional education designed, delivered, assessed, evaluated, and quality-assured across forensic disciplines internationally, and how are they linked to ongoing professional competence?
The secondary questions are:
1. Which forensic disciplines, practitioner groups, career stages, jurisdictions, and practice settings are represented?
2. How are learning needs identified, and how are professional tasks, competencies, and learning objectives used to determine curriculum content and structure?
3. What content domains, sequencing, learning formats, educational resources, and faculty or supervisory arrangements are reported?
4. How are learning and competence assessed, and what approaches are used for feedback, remediation, reassessment, and progression?
5. What evaluation methods, follow-up periods, and learner-, practice-, or service-level outcomes are reported?
6. How are curricula reviewed and updated, and how do they address interprofessional working, emerging practice requirements, and local adaptation?

Stage 2: Identifying Relevant Studies

Information Sources

The database search will cover PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and APA PsycINFO. Sources will be searched from inception to the final search date. Database platforms, coverage, search dates, and any access limitations will be recorded.
No publication date, geographical limits will be imposed. Only articles published in the English language will be considered.

Search Strategy

The search will combine a forensic-practice block with an education, curriculum, and competence block. Broad curriculum and education terms will be retained because continuing-development activities may be described without using a consistent continuing-education label. Professional role, career stage, mandatory status, accreditation, and outcome terms will not be required as additional intersecting blocks. These characteristics will instead be assessed during screening and charting. Table 1 presents the principal concepts, and Table 2 specifies the information sources and search fields.
An initial limited search of PubMed and Scopus will support refinement of text words and indexing terms. The strategy will then be translated to the remaining databases using their native syntax and relevant thesauri. Appendix A provides the complete proposed PubMed and Scopus searches, as well as the translation specification. Search refinements will be documented before the definitive searches are executed. No study design, outcome, or effectiveness filters will be applied [15].
Reference lists of included sources and relevant evidence syntheses will be checked. Database searches will be updated before submission if more than six months have elapsed since the last search.

Search Strategy Refinement

An information specialist will peer review the principal PubMed strategy using the PRESS checklist before translation and execution. The review will address the research question translation, Boolean logic, text words, subject headings, spelling, syntax, and limits. The strategy will also be checked against known eligible sources to identify any relevant terminology not captured. Such checks will support search refinement and will not confer automatic inclusion on any source. Amendments and their rationale will be retained in the search log [18].

Search Management

Records will be imported into Covidence for deduplication and screening. Automated duplicate detection will be supplemented by manual comparison of titles, authors, dates, identifiers, and document versions. Original exports will be retained unchanged. Records identified through websites or citation searching will be entered with sufficient bibliographic information and a stable locator. The search source and search round will remain traceable for each record.

Stage 3: Study Selection

Screening

Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, followed by an independent full-text assessment. Before formal screening, the reviewers will calibrate the eligibility criteria using 5–10 records from different disciplines and document types, and discuss any discrepancies. The calibration exercise will be repeated if the eligibility rules are not being applied consistently. Guidance may be clarified without changing the prespecified scope of review.
A record considered potentially eligible by either reviewer, or for which eligibility is uncertain, will proceed to full-text assessment. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion and, where necessary, a third reviewer. Reviewers will not determine eligibility solely on the presence or absence of the words "curriculum," "continuing education," or "accreditation." The substantive educational content and the eligible practitioner group will govern inclusion [15].
For inaccessible full texts or missing essential information, the team will seek assistance from the library or contact the corresponding author or the issuing organization. A reminder will be sent after approximately two weeks, where appropriate. Reports not retrieved will be recorded and excluded. The completed review will include a PRISMA flow diagram with actual selection counts and reasons for full-text exclusion [16].

Inclusion Criteria

Population. Qualified or practicing professionals involved in forensic examination, analysis, evidence recovery, interpretation, reporting, teaching, supervision, or professional oversight. Clinicians with forensic or medicolegal responsibilities are eligible when the educational component relates directly to forensic practice.
Concept. Continuing professional education or competence maintenance with substantive information on at least one curriculum-design or educational-assurance component: needs assessment; competencies or objectives; content and sequencing; teaching or supervision; assessment and feedback; remediation or reassessment; implementation resources; evaluation; curriculum updating; or approval, accreditation, or certification arrangements that shape education. Educational needs assessments may be included even when no curriculum has yet been implemented. Standards or policies may be included without a participant sample when they specify relevant educational or competence-maintenance requirements.
Context. Any country, legal system, professional discipline, public or private organization, or relevant academic, laboratory, healthcare, field, remote-learning, or professional-development setting. Single-discipline and interprofessional arrangements are eligible.
Source types. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies; program descriptions; curricula; competency frameworks; and sufficiently detailed conference reports. Reviews, editorials, and commentaries are eligible when they contain substantive analysis or proposals concerning continuing education or its oversight.

Exclusion Criteria

Sources will be excluded when they concern only undergraduate, pre-licensure, entry-to-practice, or initial specialist education without a separable continuing-development component; mixed learner groups with no identifiable information for eligible practitioners; general healthcare, law, policing, or public education without a substantive forensic-practice component; or purely technical methods, instrumentation, computational model training, or validation without educational or competence-maintenance relevance.
Sources that merely mention training, competence, or accreditation incidentally will also be excluded. Commercial advertisements and course listings without substantive information on objectives, content, educational structure, assessment, or oversight will not be sufficient. General toxicology or other non-forensic professional education will not be included unless a distinct forensic application meeting the criteria is reported. Sources lacking sufficient information for an eligibility decision after reasonable retrieval attempts will be documented as unresolved rather than presumed to meet the criteria.
When an excluded entry-level or non-forensic education source is relevant to the background or methods, its contextual use will remain separate from the included review evidence.

Stage 4: Data Charting

A standardized charting form will be based on the review questions and piloted independently by two reviewers on at least five eligible sources representing different disciplines and document types. After calibration, one reviewer will chart each source, and a second will verify all entries against the full text. Disagreements will be discussed or referred to a third reviewer. The form will be refined iteratively, with earlier records revisited whenever a substantive field or coding rule changes. [14,15]
Table 3 specifies the charting framework. Information will be recorded as reported, with page or section locators. The form will distinguish not reported, not applicable, and explicitly absent. A learning objective, assessment threshold, credit requirement, or accreditation status will not be inferred from a program title. When authors use ambiguous terminology, the original term and the review team’s functional interpretation will be retained separately.
Multiple outcomes from the same program will be charted separately, retaining their measurement method and timing. Attendance, confidence, knowledge test scores, simulated performance, and actual workplace performance will not be combined into a single competence measure. Formal risk-of-bias scoring will not be used to determine inclusion because the purpose is to map the nature and design of educational arrangements across heterogeneous sources. Nevertheless, empirical design, comparators, follow-up, measurement limitations, and source transparency will be recorded to support cautious interpretation. Publication as a standard, policy, or consensus document will not be treated as evidence that a curriculum improves performance [15].

Stage 5: Collating, Summarising, and Reporting the Results

Descriptive Analysis

Data will be organized in a structured spreadsheet and summarised using frequencies, proportions, and appropriate descriptive statistics. Summaries will describe the distribution of sources by year, discipline, jurisdiction, practitioner group, educational setting, document type, and implementation status. Educational features will include needs assessment methods, curriculum structure, delivery, assessment, evaluation, updating, and formal recognition. This structured synthesis will map the existing literature on curriculum design strategies.
Following data charting in Excel, the research team will conduct both systematic and narrative analyses to categorize the studies across key domains relevant to this review, as shown in Table 4.

Educational Outcomes

Reported educational outcomes will be mapped to the four levels of the Kirkpatrick framework, with the underlying measures and data sources retained. Table 5 specifies the operational mapping for this review. The framework will organize the evidence for outcomes rather than rank study quality or imply that outcomes at successive levels have been demonstrated [19].
Knowledge, skill, or confidence measured immediately after education will not be described as retained competence without follow-up evidence. Similarly, a change in work instructions, accreditation status, or organizational policy will be treated as a process or governance change unless an educational outcome is actually measured. Multiple levels may be assigned to a source only when separate supporting outcomes are reported.

Stage 6: Stakeholder Consultation (Optional Stage)

Stakeholder consultation is recognized as an additional stage of the Arksey and O’Malley framework, with Levac and colleagues emphasizing its value for interpretation and knowledge translation. No primary stakeholder consultation is included in the present protocol. Subsequent consultation or consensus-based curriculum development will be conducted under a separate protocol with appropriate ethics determination. The evidence map may support that work, but the present review will not claim stakeholder validation or consensus. [13,14]

Limitations

This review has several limitations. Limiting inclusion to English-language publications may introduce language bias and potentially exclude relevant studies published in other languages. Although the search strategy is designed to be comprehensive, some studies may be overlooked due to inconsistent indexing or limited access to certain sources.
The significant differences in curriculum design, educational context, instructional methods, and evaluation approaches may pose challenges to comparing findings across studies. Methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes, lack of rigorous outcome measures, or limited detail on curricular components, may further affect the interpretation and generalizability of the results.
Despite these limitations, the review will provide valuable insights into how forensics training curricula are designed and implemented across diverse healthcare settings and highlight areas in need of further research and development.

Ethics and Dissemination

Ethical Considerations

The review will analyze published literature and will not collect identifiable participant data or intervene in professional practice. Formal research-ethics approval is not anticipated. Requests to authors or organizations will be limited to source retrieval or factual clarification and will not constitute an interview study. Confidential case material or identifiable practitioner-performance data will not be requested.
Copyright, database licenses, and restrictions on standards documents will be respected. Search exports, screening decisions, and charted data will be stored securely. Shared materials will comprise permissible bibliographic records, review-generated data, and methodological documentation rather than unrestricted copies of copyrighted source material.

Dissemination Strategy

The completed review will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Findings will also be presented at relevant meetings in forensic medicine, forensic science, and professional education. A concise curriculum design summary will be prepared for educators, practitioners, professional associations, accrediting organizations, and forensic service leaders.
Subject to licensing restrictions, the protocol record, executed search strategies, eligibility guidance, charting form, amendment log, and evidence matrices will be made available through the published protocol. Professional networks and educational meetings will provide opportunities to discuss the applicability and limits of the findings. Any subsequent curriculum development or implementation study will identify its own methods and remain distinct from this evidence-mapping review.

Project Timeline

The review is planned over 12 months from protocol finalization, with overlapping activities where appropriate. The timeline is an operational estimate rather than a report of completed study activities.
Table 6. Anticipated project timeline.
Table 6. Anticipated project timeline.
Activity Planned period
Protocol finalization, registration, and search peer review Months 1–2
Database searches Months 2–3
Deduplication and title/abstract screening Months 3–4
Full-text retrieval and eligibility assessment Months 4–6
Charting-form piloting, extraction, and verification Months 6–8
Descriptive analysis and curriculum-design synthesis Months 8–10
Manuscript preparation and internal review Months 10–11
Search update where required, final checks, and submission Months 11–12

Ongoing Coordination

The team will maintain a shared task and decision log and meet regularly during searching, screening, charting, and synthesis. Responsibilities for screening, adjudication, extraction, verification, and analysis will be documented. Reviewers with authorship or another direct interest in an included source will not make the final eligibility or interpretive decision for that source without independent assessment.

Support and Funding

None to declare.

Acknowledgements

None to declare.

Conflicts of Interest

None to declare.

Appendix A. Electronic Search Strategies

PUBMED ((forensic* OR medicolegal OR "medico-legal" OR "legal medicine" OR "crime scene*" OR criminalistic* OR "crime laborator*" OR "forensic laborator*" OR "forensic service*" OR "medical examiner*" OR coroner* OR "death investigation*" OR "medicolegal death investigation*" OR "medical examiner system*" OR "coroner system*" OR "crime scene unit*" OR "law enforcement laborator*" OR "forensic evidence" OR "expert evidence" OR "expert testimony" OR "courtroom testimony") AND ("continuing professional education" OR "continuing professional development" OR "continuing education" OR "continuous education" OR "professional development" OR "continuous learning" OR "in-service training" OR "inservice training" OR "on-the-job training" OR "workplace learning" OR "practice-based learning" OR "staff development" OR "workforce development" OR "post-qualification education" OR "post-qualification training" OR "post-registration education" OR "refresher course*" OR "refresher training" OR "recurrent training" OR "mandatory training" OR "training program*" OR "educational program*" OR "educational intervention*" OR upskill* OR reskill* OR "training need*" OR "learning need*" OR "educational needs assessment*" OR "maintenance of certification" OR CPD OR CPE OR CME OR "technical expertise" OR "continuing competence" OR "maintenance of competence" OR "competence assurance" OR "competency assurance" OR "skill maintenance" OR "skills maintenance" OR "skill retention" OR "knowledge retention" OR "skill decay" OR "skill fade" OR "performance assessment*" OR "practice assessment*" OR "skills assessment*" OR "skills validation" OR accredit* OR "continuing education requirement*" OR "CPD requirement*")) AND (pathologist* OR toxicologist* OR chemist* OR biologist* OR geneticist* OR anthropologist* OR odontologist* OR psychiatrist* OR psychologist* OR criminalist* OR "forensic professional*" OR "forensic practitioner*" OR "forensic scientist*" OR "forensic specialist*" OR "forensic personnel" OR "forensic examiner*" OR "forensic analyst*" OR "forensic investigator*" OR "medical examiner*" OR coroner* OR "death investigator*" OR "DNA analyst*" OR "crime scene investigator*" OR "crime scene examiner*" OR "fingerprint examiner*" OR "latent print examiner*" OR "firearm* examiner*" OR "toolmark examiner*" OR "questioned document examiner*" OR "trace evidence examiner*" OR "digital forensic examiner*" OR "laboratory personnel" OR "laboratory staff" OR "expert witness*" OR "forensic institution*" OR "forensic service provider*")
Scopus ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( forensic* OR medicolegal OR "medico-legal" OR "legal medicine" OR "crime scene*" OR criminalistic* OR "crime laborator*" OR "forensic laborator*" OR "forensic service*" OR "medical examiner*" OR coroner* OR "death investigation*" OR "medicolegal death investigation*" OR "medical examiner system*" OR "coroner system*" OR "crime scene unit*" OR "law enforcement laborator*" OR "forensic evidence" OR "expert evidence" OR "expert testimony" OR "courtroom testimony" ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "continuing professional education" OR "continuing professional development" OR "continuing education" OR "continuous education" OR "professional development" OR "continuous learning" OR "in-service training" OR "inservice training" OR "on-the-job training" OR "workplace learning" OR "practice-based learning" OR "staff development" OR "workforce development" OR "post-qualification education" OR "post-qualification training" OR "post-registration education" OR "refresher course*" OR "refresher training" OR "recurrent training" OR "mandatory training" OR "training program*" OR "educational program*" OR "educational intervention*" OR upskill* OR reskill* OR "training need*" OR "learning need*" OR "educational needs assessment*" OR "maintenance of certification" OR CPD OR CPE OR CME OR "technical expertise" OR "continuing competence" OR "maintenance of competence" OR "competence assurance" OR "competency assurance" OR "skill maintenance" OR "skills maintenance" OR "skill retention" OR "knowledge retention" OR "skill decay" OR "skill fade" OR "performance assessment*" OR "practice assessment*" OR "skills assessment*" OR "skills validation" OR accredit* OR "continuing education requirement*" OR "CPD requirement*" ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( pathologist* OR toxicologist* OR chemist* OR biologist* OR geneticist* OR anthropologist* OR odontologist* OR psychiatrist* OR psychologist* OR criminalist* OR "forensic professional*" OR "forensic practitioner*" OR "forensic scientist*" OR "forensic specialist*" OR "forensic personnel" OR "forensic examiner*" OR "forensic analyst*" OR "forensic investigator*" OR "medical examiner*" OR coroner* OR "death investigator*" OR "DNA analyst*" OR "crime scene investigator*" OR "crime scene examiner*" OR "fingerprint examiner*" OR "latent print examiner*" OR "firearm* examiner*" OR "toolmark examiner*" OR "questioned document examiner*" OR "trace evidence examiner*" OR "digital forensic examiner*" OR "laboratory personnel" OR "laboratory staff" OR "expert witness*" OR "forensic institution*" OR "forensic service provider*" ) )
CINAHL ( forensic* OR medicolegal OR "medico-legal" OR "legal medicine" OR "crime scene*" OR criminalistic* OR "crime laborator*" OR "forensic laborator*" OR "forensic service*" OR "medical examiner*" OR coroner* OR "death investigation*" OR "medicolegal death investigation*" OR "medical examiner system*" OR "coroner system*" OR "crime scene unit*" OR "law enforcement laborator*" OR "forensic evidence" OR "expert evidence" OR "expert testimony" OR "courtroom testimony" ) AND ( "continuing professional education" OR "continuing professional development" OR "continuing education" OR "continuous education" OR "professional development" OR "continuous learning" OR "in-service training" OR "inservice training" OR "on-the-job training" OR "workplace learning" OR "practice-based learning" OR "staff development" OR "workforce development" OR "post-qualification education" OR "post-qualification training" OR "post-registration education" OR "refresher course*" OR "refresher training" OR "recurrent training" OR "mandatory training" OR "training program*" OR "educational program*" OR "educational intervention*" OR upskill* OR reskill* OR "training need*" OR "learning need*" OR "educational needs assessment*" OR "maintenance of certification" OR CPD OR CPE OR CME OR "technical expertise" OR "continuing competence" OR "maintenance of competence" OR "competence assurance" OR "competency assurance" OR "skill maintenance" OR "skills maintenance" OR "skill retention" OR "knowledge retention" OR "skill decay" OR "skill fade" OR "performance assessment*" OR "practice assessment*" OR "skills assessment*" OR "skills validation" OR accredit* OR "continuing education requirement*" OR "CPD requirement*" ) AND ( pathologist* OR toxicologist* OR chemist* OR biologist* OR geneticist* OR anthropologist* OR odontologist* OR psychiatrist* OR psychologist* OR criminalist* OR "forensic professional*" OR "forensic practitioner*" OR "forensic scientist*" OR "forensic specialist*" OR "forensic personnel" OR "forensic examiner*" OR "forensic analyst*" OR "forensic investigator*" OR "medical examiner*" OR coroner* OR "death investigator*" OR "DNA analyst*" OR "crime scene investigator*" OR "crime scene examiner*" OR "fingerprint examiner*" OR "latent print examiner*" OR "firearm* examiner*" OR "toolmark examiner*" OR "questioned document examiner*" OR "trace evidence examiner*" OR "digital forensic examiner*" OR "laboratory personnel" OR "laboratory staff" OR "expert witness*" OR "forensic institution*" OR "forensic service provider*" )
Psycinfo Any Field: forensic* OR Any Field: medicolegal OR Any Field: "medico-legal" OR Any Field: "legal medicine" OR Any Field: "crime scene*" OR Any Field: criminalistic* OR Any Field: "crime laborator*" OR Any Field: "forensic laborator*" OR Any Field: "forensic service*" OR Any Field: "medical examiner*" OR Any Field: coroner* OR Any Field: "death investigation*" OR Any Field: "medicolegal death investigation*" OR Any Field: "medical examiner system*" OR Any Field: "coroner system*" OR Any Field: "crime scene unit*" OR Any Field: "law enforcement laborator*" OR Any Field: "forensic evidence" OR Any Field: "expert evidence" OR Any Field: "expert testimony" OR Any Field: "courtroom testimony" AND Any Field: "continuing professional education" OR Any Field: "continuing professional development" OR Any Field: "continuing education" OR Any Field: "continuous education" OR Any Field: "professional development" OR Any Field: "continuous learning" OR Any Field: "in-service training" OR Any Field: "inservice training" OR Any Field: "on-the-job training" OR Any Field: "workplace learning" OR Any Field: "practice-based learning" OR Any Field: "staff development" OR Any Field: "workforce development" OR Any Field: "post-qualification education" OR Any Field: "post-qualification training" OR Any Field: "post-registration education" OR Any Field: "refresher course*" OR Any Field: "refresher training" OR Any Field: "recurrent training" OR Any Field: "mandatory training" OR Any Field: "training program*" OR Any Field: "educational program*" OR Any Field: "educational intervention*" OR Any Field: upskill* OR Any Field: reskill* OR Any Field: "training need*" OR Any Field: "learning need*" OR Any Field: "educational needs assessment*" OR Any Field: "maintenance of certification" OR Any Field: CPD OR Any Field: CPE OR Any Field: CME OR Any Field: "technical expertise" OR Any Field: "continuing competence" OR Any Field: "maintenance of competence" OR Any Field: "competence assurance" OR Any Field: "competency assurance" OR Any Field: "skill maintenance" OR Any Field: "skills maintenance" OR Any Field: "skill retention" OR Any Field: "knowledge retention" OR Any Field: "skill decay" OR Any Field: "skill fade" OR Any Field: "performance assessment*" OR Any Field: "practice assessment*" OR Any Field: "skills assessment*" OR Any Field: "skills validation" OR Any Field: accredit* OR Any Field: "continuing education requirement*" OR Any Field: "CPD requirement*" AND Any Field: pathologist* OR Any Field: toxicologist* OR Any Field: chemist* OR Any Field: biologist* OR Any Field: geneticist* OR Any Field: anthropologist* OR Any Field: odontologist* OR Any Field: psychiatrist* OR Any Field: psychologist* OR Any Field: criminalist* OR Any Field: "forensic professional*" OR Any Field: "forensic practitioner*" OR Any Field: "forensic scientist*" OR Any Field: "forensic specialist*" OR Any Field: "forensic personnel" OR Any Field: "forensic examiner*" OR Any Field: "forensic analyst*" OR Any Field: "forensic investigator*" OR Any Field: "medical examiner*" OR Any Field: coroner* OR Any Field: "death investigator*" OR Any Field: "DNA analyst*" OR Any Field: "crime scene investigator*" OR Any Field: "crime scene examiner*" OR Any Field: "fingerprint examiner*" OR Any Field: "latent print examiner*" OR Any Field: "firearm* examiner*" OR Any Field: "toolmark examiner*" OR Any Field: "questioned document examiner*" OR Any Field: "trace evidence examiner*" OR Any Field: "digital forensic examiner*" OR Any Field: "laboratory personnel" OR Any Field: "laboratory staff" OR Any Field: "expert witness*" OR Any Field: "forensic institution*" OR Any Field: "forensic service provider*"
Embase (forensic* OR medicolegal OR 'medico-legal' OR 'legal medicine' OR 'crime scene*' OR criminalistic* OR 'crime laborator*' OR 'medical examiner*' OR coroner* OR 'death investigation*') AND ('continuing professional education' OR 'continuing professional development' OR 'continuing education' OR 'professional development' OR 'in-service training' OR 'inservice training' OR 'on-the-job training' OR 'workplace learning' OR 'staff development' OR 'post-qualification training' OR 'refresher training' OR 'training program*' OR 'educational program*' OR 'educational intervention*' OR 'training need*' OR 'learning need*' OR 'continuing competence' OR 'maintenance of competence' OR 'competence assurance' OR 'maintenance of certification' OR accredit* OR CPD OR CPE OR CME) AND (pathologist* OR toxicologist* OR chemist* OR biologist* OR geneticist* OR anthropologist* OR odontologist* OR psychiatrist* OR psychologist* OR criminalist* OR 'forensic professional*' OR 'forensic practitioner*' OR 'forensic scientist*' OR 'forensic examiner*' OR 'forensic analyst*' OR 'forensic investigator*' OR 'medical examiner*' OR coroner* OR 'death investigator*' OR 'DNA analyst*' OR 'crime scene investigator*' OR 'crime scene examiner*' OR 'fingerprint examiner*' OR 'latent print examiner*' OR 'firearm* examiner*' OR 'toolmark examiner*' OR 'questioned document examiner*' OR 'trace evidence examiner*' OR 'laboratory personnel' OR 'laboratory staff' OR 'expert witness*' OR 'forensic institution*' OR 'forensic service provider*')

References

  1. Tilstone, W.J. Education, training, and assessment in forensic science. J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 1991, 31(2), 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cosbey, S.; Elliott, S.; Paterson, S. The United Kingdom and Ireland Association of Forensic Toxicologists; establishing best practice for professional training & development in forensic toxicology. Sci. Justice 2017, 57(1), 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. ASTM International. ANSI/ASTM E2917-24a; Standard practice for forensic science practitioner training, continuing education, and professional development programs. ASTM International: West Conshohocken (PA), 2024.
  4. Nilendu, D. Enhancing forensic education: exploring the importance and implementation of evidence-based education system. Egypt J. Forensic Sci. 2024, 14, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Elkins, K.M.; Joseph, S.; Skrant, C. Survey on forensic DNA biology training in forensic science service laboratories in the United States. J. Forensic Sci. 2025, 70(1), 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Magni, P.A.; Pitts, K. The need for Forensic Scientists to up-skill their Sci-Comm. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2020, 73, 101998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Martynenko, N. Areas of modernization of the system of training and certification of forensic experts in Ukraine based on the adaptation of foreign experience. Forensic Sci. Res. 2024, 9(4), owae033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Soucy, N.V.; Masten, S.; Caro, C.; Arthur, A.M.; Moore, N.H.; Hooth, M.J.; Mitkus, R. Updating the standards of professional competence in the field of toxicology: the second generation of best practice. Int. J. Toxicol. 2023, 42(5), 430–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Sahu, S.S.; Padhi, K.S.; Mohanty, M.K. Knowledge and awareness of medicolegal procedures among residents of a tertiary care institute in India: a pre–post interventional study. Indian J. Forensic Community Med. 2026, 13(2), 280–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cusack, D.A. The European Council of Legal and Forensic Medicine: its role and work in progressing harmonized standards and recommendations in Forensic and Legal Medicine investigation procedures, training and teaching through pursuit of internationally agreed and peer-reviewed published guidelines—Int J Legal Med. 2025, 139, 1781–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Van Den Bogaert, W.; Wuestenbergs, J.; Bekaert, B.; Dequeker, E.; Van de Voorde, W. Enhancing postmortem diagnostics: over a decade of ISO 17020 accreditation and guidelines implementation in forensic pathology. Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol. 2025, 21, 682–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. McCartney, C.; Nsiah Amoako, E. Accreditation of forensic science service providers. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2019, 65, 143–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8(1), 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Levac, D.; Colquhoun, H.; O’Brien, K.K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010, 5, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Peters, M.D.J.; Marnie, C.; Tricco, A.C.; Pollock, D.; Munn, Z.; Alexander, L.; et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020, 18(10), 2119–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern Med. 2018, 169(7), 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Rethlefsen, M.L.; Kirtley, S.; Waffenschmidt, S.; Ayala, A.P.; Moher, D.; Page, M.J.; et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. McGowan, J.; Sampson, M.; Salzwedel, D.M.; Cogo, E.; Foerster, V.; Lefebvre, C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2016, 75, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kirkpatrick, Partners. The Kirkpatrick Model [Internet]. 24 Sep 2026. Available online: https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/the-kirkpatrick-model/.
Table 1. Search concepts and indicative terms.
Table 1. Search concepts and indicative terms.
Search component Terms and concepts
Forensic practice Forensic; medicolegal; medico-legal; legal medicine; criminalistics; crime scene; crime laboratory; death investigation; medical examiner; coroner; expert witness; expert testimony.
Curriculum and education Curriculum; education; teaching; pedagogy; continuing education; professional development; workplace learning; in-service training; refresher training; training programs; learning needs; learning objectives; mentorship.
Competence and educational assurance Competence; proficiency; assessment; certification; recertification; credentialing; accreditation; quality assurance; professional standards; codes of practice.
Population and context Practitioners, clinicians, scientists, analysts, examiners, investigators, educators, supervisors, professional bodies, and regulators; laboratory, healthcare, scene, academic, and professional settings.
Table 2. Database search plan.
Table 2. Database search plan.
Information source and platform Planned search fields and adaptation
PubMed MeSH and title/abstract terms; complete proposed strategy in Appendix A.
Embase Enter headings and title, abstract, and keyword terms; translate the PubMed concepts and document the final subject headings.
Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY; complete proposed strategy in Appendix A.
CINAHL, EBSCOhost Title/abstract terms and relevant CINAHL subject headings.
APA PsycINFO, EBSCOhost Title/abstract terms and relevant APA Thesaurus terms.
Table 3. Data-charting framework.
Table 3. Data-charting framework.
Field Information to be charted
Study ID Last name of author and year of publication.
Country The country where the study was conducted.
Study design Type of study (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, case study, commentary).
Practitioner group Role, qualifications, career stage, responsibilities, prior experience, and eligibility requirements.
Program or requirement Name, stated purpose, responsible institution, and relationship to a wider professional-development pathway.
Learning-needs assessment Source of identified needs, including practice analysis, practitioner surveys, audits, case review, performance gaps, or changes in practice.
Stakeholder contribution Roles of practitioners, learners, educators, service leaders, professional bodies, and legal or regulatory representatives in curriculum development.
Educational framework Named curriculum-development model, learning theory, competency framework, or professional standard; its reported use rather than name alone.
Competencies and objectives Intended knowledge, skills, judgment, professional behaviors, and observable learning objectives; links to professional tasks where reported.
Duration and participation Contact time, independent study, frequency, recurrence, attendance requirements, credits, renewal interval, and mandatory or voluntary status.
Educational delivery Face-to-face, online, or blended delivery; synchronous or self-paced learning; case discussions, workshops, simulations, supervised practice, mentoring, and other methods.
Teaching and learning resources Manuals, work instructions, case materials, reading resources, learning platforms, facilities, equipment, and access arrangements.
Educator and assessor preparation Expertise, qualifications, training, supervisory responsibilities, and available teaching time.
Feedback and remediation Timing and provider of feedback; learning plans, reassessment, retraining, and actions following unsuccessful performance.
Educational approval and accreditation Approving or accrediting body.
Evaluation methods Sample, recruitment, comparator, baseline assessment, follow-up interval, instruments, data sources, and analytic approach.
Educational and practice outcomes Participation, acceptability, knowledge, assessed skills, self-reported learning, workplace behavior, service outcomes, and reported adverse or unintended effects.
Implementation and access Faculty time, cost, protected learning time, technology, accessibility, feasibility, and sustainability.
Table 4. Curriculum-design synthesis matrix.
Table 4. Curriculum-design synthesis matrix.
Design component Questions for synthesis Intended contribution
Needs and professional tasks How were learning needs established? Which roles, tasks, or performance gaps were addressed? Map the documented basis for selecting curriculum priorities.
Competencies and objectives Are intended capabilities specified, and are they linked to professional responsibilities? Identify how expectations are translated into learning objectives.
Content and structure What is taught, in what sequence, and at what level? Is learning individualized or recurrent? Describe core, advanced, elective, and continuing-development arrangements.
Teaching and implementation How are educational methods, supervision, faculty, and resources organized? Relate delivery choices to learner needs and implementation conditions.
Assessment and feedback What is assessed, how is performance judged, and what follows an unsuccessful assessment? Map alignment, measurement approaches, feedback, remediation, and reassessment.
Evaluation and revision What outcomes are evaluated, when, and how do findings inform curriculum updates? Identify evidence for learning, transfer, sustainability, and improvement.
Quality assurance and recognition Who approves, monitors, or recognizes the education, and what evidence is required? Distinguish educational oversight from individual credentials and service accreditation.
Table 5. Operational mapping of reported educational outcomes.
Table 5. Operational mapping of reported educational outcomes.
Outcome grouping Examples to be charted
Level 1: Reaction Satisfaction, acceptability, and perceived relevance of the education.
Level 2: Learning Knowledge tests, practical assessments, assessed report writing, or simulated testimony; self-reported learning or confidence.
Level 3: Behavior Application during casework, observed practice, workplace documentation review, or reported changes in professional practice.
Level 4: Results Service-level outcomes, quality indicators, documented errors, timeliness, or other organizational effects linked to the educational initiative.
Not classifiable Outcomes are insufficiently described or not meaningfully represented by the framework.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.