The Transfer Measurement Crisis in Teacher Professional Development: A Scoping Review of Evaluation Methods, Multilevel Factors, and Validity Gaps

SCOPING REVIEW PROTOCOL Objective: To systematically map the empirical literature on training transfer in teacher professional development (PD), examining how PD-acquired knowledge and skills are applied in classroom practice. Research Questions: RQ1: How is training transfer conceptualised and defined in the empirical literature on teacher PD? RQ2: What theoretical frameworks are employed to study training transfer in teacher PD? RQ3: What individual, PD design, organisational, and system-level factors are reported as influencing transfer? RQ4: How is training transfer measured, and over what timeframes? RQ5: What evidence gaps exist with implications for educational evaluation research and practice? Methodology: This scoping review follows the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020) and is reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018). Eligibility Criteria (PCC Framework): Population: In-service teachers, school leaders in teaching roles, and teacher educators participating in formal PD programmes. Concept: Training transfer, operationalised as the application of PD-acquired knowledge, skills, attitudes, or practices to classroom or professional settings. Context: Formal educational settings at primary, secondary, K-12, or higher education levels internationally. Inclusion Criteria: (a) Published in English between January 2015 and March 2026 (b) Original empirical data from quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods designs (c) Explicitly examines transfer, implementation, or application of PD content to practice (d) Published in peer-reviewed journals Exclusion Criteria: (a) Student-outcome-only studies without teacher-level transfer data (b) Non-education professional training contexts (c) Conceptual or theoretical papers without empirical data (d) Parental engagement studies (e) Dissertations, conference papers, or book chapters without peer review Databases: Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Education Source, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar (first 200 results). Search Strategy (Boolean): Block A (Population): teacher* OR educator* OR "school leader*" OR instructor* Block B (PD): "professional development" OR training OR "in-service" OR workshop* OR coaching OR "professional learning communit*" OR PLC OR "continuing education" Block C (Transfer): transfer OR implementation OR application OR "knowledge mobiliation" OR fidelity OR "classroom practice" OR generaliation OR maintenance OR sustainab OR "pedagogical change" Combined: (Block A) AND (Block B) AND (Block C) Screening Process: Two independent reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts, followed by independent full-text assessment. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus discussion. Data Charting: A standardised 25-variable charting template across four domains (bibliographic, methodological, PD characteristics, and transfer-related) will be used. Both reviewers will independently extract data for all included studies. Inter-rater agreement will be assessed using Cohen's kappa. Synthesis: Descriptive-analytical synthesis with frequency counts, cross-tabulations, and thematic mapping onto an extended Baldwin and Ford (1988) framework incorporating individual, PD design, organisational, and system-level factors. Theoretical Framework: Baldwin and Ford's (1988) transfer of training model, extended with a fourth level (system-level factors) to account for the policy-embedded nature of educational transfer. References: Baldwin, T. T., and Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63-105. Peters, M. D. J., et al. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119-2126. Tricco, A. C., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467-473.