Dataset Information

Analysing clinical reasoning characteristics using a combined methods approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite a major research focus on clinical reasoning over the last several decades, a method of evaluating the clinical reasoning process that is both objective and comprehensive is yet to be developed.The aim of this study was to test whether a dual approach, using two measures of clinical reasoning, the Clinical Reasoning Problem (CRP) and the Script Concordance Test (SCT), provides a valid, reliable and targeted analysis of clinical reasoning characteristics to facilitate the development of diagnostic thinking in medical students.

Methods

Three groups of participants, general practitioners, and third and fourth (final) year medical students completed 20 on-line clinical scenarios -10 in CRP and 10 in SCT format. Scores for each format were analysed for reliability, correlation between the two formats and differences between subject-groups.

Results

Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranged from 0.36 for SCT 1 to 0.61 for CRP 2, Statistically significant correlations were found between the mean f-score of the CRP 2 and total SCT 2 score (0.69); and between the mean f-score for all CRPs and all mean SCT scores (0.57 and 0.47 respectively). The pass/fail rates of the SCT and CRP f-score are in keeping with the findings from the correlation analysis (i.e. 31% of students (11/35) passed both, 26% failed both, and 43% (15/35) of students passed one but not the other test), and suggest that the two formats measure overlapping but not identical characteristics. One-way ANOVA showed consistent differences in scores between levels of expertise with these differences being significant or approaching significance for the CRPs.

Conclusion

SCTs and CRPs are overlapping and complementary measures of clinical reasoning. Whilst SCTs are more efficient to administer, the use of both measures provides a more comprehensive appraisal of clinical skills than either single measure alone, and as such could potentially facilitate the customised teaching of clinical reasoning for individuals. The modest reliability of SCTs and CRPs in this study suggests the need for an increased number of items for testing. Further work is needed to determine the suitability of a combined approach for assessment purposes.

SUBMITTER: Groves M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4231458 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImproving clinical reasoning skills-the thought processes used by clinicians to formulate appropriate questions and diagnoses-is essential for reducing missed diagnostic opportunities. The electronic Clinical Reasoning Educational Simulation Tool (eCREST) was developed to improve the clinical reasoning of future physicians. A feasibility trial demonstrated acceptability and potential impacts; however, the processes by which students gathered data were unknown.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the data gathering patterns of final year medical students while using eCREST and how eCREST influences the patterns.MethodsA mixed methods design was used. A trial of eCREST across 3 UK medical schools (N=148) measured the potential effects of eCREST on data gathering. A qualitative think-aloud and semistructured interview study with 16 medical students from one medical school identified 3 data gathering strategies: Thorough, Focused, and Succinct. Some had no strategy. Reanalysis of the trial data identified the prevalence of data gathering patterns and compared patterns between the intervention and control groups. Patterns were identified based on 2 variables that were measured in a patient case 1 month after the intervention: the proportion of Essential information students identified and the proportion of irrelevant information gathered (Relevant). Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles for Essential but in the lowest quartile for Relevant displayed a Thorough pattern. Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles for Relevant but in the lowest quartile for Essential displayed a Succinct pattern. Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles on both variables displayed a Focused pattern. Those whose scores were in the lowest quartile on both variables displayed a Nonspecific pattern.ResultsThe trial results indicated that students in the intervention group were more thorough than those in the control groups when gathering data. The qualitative data identified data gathering strategies and the mechanisms by which eCREST influenced data gathering. Students reported that eCREST promoted thoroughness by prompting them to continuously reflect and allowing them to practice managing uncertainty. However, some found eCREST to be less useful, and they randomly gathered information. Reanalysis of the trial data revealed that the intervention group was significantly more likely to display a Thorough data gathering pattern than controls (21/78, 27% vs 6/70, 9%) and less likely to display a Succinct pattern (13/78, 17% vs 20/70, 29%; χ23=9.9; P=.02). Other patterns were similar across groups.ConclusionsQualitative data suggested that students applied a range of data gathering strategies while using eCREST and that eCREST encouraged thoroughness by continuously prompting the students to reflect and manage their uncertainty. Trial data suggested that eCREST led students to demonstrate more Thorough data gathering patterns. Virtual patients that encourage thoroughness could help future physicians avoid missed diagnostic opportunities and enhance the delivery of clinical reasoning teaching.

Project description:ObjectivesThe primary objectives of this study were to examine the regulatory processes of medical students as they completed a diagnostic reasoning task and to examine whether the strategic quality of these regulatory processes were related to short-term and longer-term medical education outcomes.MethodsA self-regulated learning (SRL) microanalytic assessment was administered to 71 second-year medical students while they read a clinical case and worked to formulate the most probable diagnosis. Verbal responses to open-ended questions targeting forethought and performance phase processes of a cyclical model of SRL were recorded verbatim and subsequently coded using a framework from prior research. Descriptive statistics and hierarchical linear regression models were used to examine the relationships between the SRL processes and several outcomes.ResultsMost participants (90%) reported focusing on specific diagnostic reasoning strategies during the task (metacognitive monitoring), but only about one-third of students referenced these strategies (e.g. identifying symptoms, integration) in relation to their task goals and plans for completing the task. After accounting for prior undergraduate achievement and verbal reasoning ability, strategic planning explained significant additional variance in course grade (ΔR(2 ) = 0.15, p < 0.01), second-year grade point average (ΔR(2) = 0.14, p < 0.01), United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score (ΔR(2) = 0.08, p < 0.05) and National Board of Medical Examiner subject examination score in internal medicine (ΔR(2) = 0.10, p < 0.05).ConclusionsThese findings suggest that most students in the formative stages of learning diagnostic reasoning skills are aware of and think about at least one key diagnostic reasoning process or strategy while solving a clinical case, but a substantially smaller percentage set goals or develop plans that incorporate such strategies. Given that students who developed more strategic plans achieved better outcomes, the potential importance of forethought regulatory processes is underscored.