Assessment of Clinical Reasoning in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Pragmatic Approach to Programmatic Assessment.

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Academic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000005665
Todd A Guth, Rachel M Wolfe, Ofelia Martinez, Raja G Subhiyah, Jerusha J Henderek, Caroline McAllister, Danielle Roussel
{"title":"Assessment of Clinical Reasoning in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Pragmatic Approach to Programmatic Assessment.","authors":"Todd A Guth, Rachel M Wolfe, Ofelia Martinez, Raja G Subhiyah, Jerusha J Henderek, Caroline McAllister, Danielle Roussel","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clinical reasoning, a complex construct integral to the practice of medicine, has been challenging to define, teach, and assess. Programmatic assessment purports to overcome validity limitations of judgments made from individual assessments through proportionality and triangulation processes. This study explored a pragmatic approach to the programmatic assessment of clinical reasoning.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study analyzed data from 2 student cohorts from the University of Utah School of Medicine (UUSOM) (n = 113 in cohort 1 and 119 in cohort 2) and 1 cohort from the University of Colorado School of Medicine (CUSOM) using assessment data that spanned from 2017 to 2021 (n = 199). The study methods included the following: (1) asking faculty judges to categorize student clinical reasoning skills, (2) selecting institution-specific assessment data conceptually aligned with clinical reasoning, (3) calculating correlations between assessment data and faculty judgments, and (4) developing regression models between assessment data and faculty judgments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Faculty judgments of student clinical reasoning skills were converted to a continuous variable of clinical reasoning struggles, with mean (SD) ratings of 2.93 (0.27) for the 232 UUSOM students and 2.96 (0.17) for the 199 CUSOM students. A total of 67 and 32 discrete assessment variables were included from the UUSOM and CUSOM, respectively. Pearson r correlations were moderate to strong between many individual and composite assessment variables and faculty judgments. Regression models demonstrated an overall adjusted R2 (standard error of the estimate) of 0.50 (0.19) for UUSOM cohort 1, 0.28 (0.15) for UUSOM cohort 2, and 0.30 (0.14) for CUSOM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study represents an early pragmatic exploration of regression analysis as a potential tool for operationalizing the proportionality and triangulation principles of programmatic assessment. The study found that programmatic assessment may be a useful framework for longitudinal assessment of complicated constructs, such as clinical reasoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005665","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Clinical reasoning, a complex construct integral to the practice of medicine, has been challenging to define, teach, and assess. Programmatic assessment purports to overcome validity limitations of judgments made from individual assessments through proportionality and triangulation processes. This study explored a pragmatic approach to the programmatic assessment of clinical reasoning.

Method: The study analyzed data from 2 student cohorts from the University of Utah School of Medicine (UUSOM) (n = 113 in cohort 1 and 119 in cohort 2) and 1 cohort from the University of Colorado School of Medicine (CUSOM) using assessment data that spanned from 2017 to 2021 (n = 199). The study methods included the following: (1) asking faculty judges to categorize student clinical reasoning skills, (2) selecting institution-specific assessment data conceptually aligned with clinical reasoning, (3) calculating correlations between assessment data and faculty judgments, and (4) developing regression models between assessment data and faculty judgments.

Results: Faculty judgments of student clinical reasoning skills were converted to a continuous variable of clinical reasoning struggles, with mean (SD) ratings of 2.93 (0.27) for the 232 UUSOM students and 2.96 (0.17) for the 199 CUSOM students. A total of 67 and 32 discrete assessment variables were included from the UUSOM and CUSOM, respectively. Pearson r correlations were moderate to strong between many individual and composite assessment variables and faculty judgments. Regression models demonstrated an overall adjusted R2 (standard error of the estimate) of 0.50 (0.19) for UUSOM cohort 1, 0.28 (0.15) for UUSOM cohort 2, and 0.30 (0.14) for CUSOM.

Conclusions: This study represents an early pragmatic exploration of regression analysis as a potential tool for operationalizing the proportionality and triangulation principles of programmatic assessment. The study found that programmatic assessment may be a useful framework for longitudinal assessment of complicated constructs, such as clinical reasoning.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
本科医学教育中的临床推理评估:课程评估的实用方法》。
目的:临床推理是医学实践中不可或缺的一个复杂概念,其定义、教学和评估一直是个难题。计划性评估旨在通过比例和三角测量过程克服单个评估所做判断的有效性限制。本研究探索了一种实用的临床推理课程评估方法:本研究分析了犹他大学医学院(UUSOM)的两批学生(第一批113人,第二批119人)和科罗拉多大学医学院(CUSOM)的一批学生(199人)从2017年到2021年的评估数据。研究方法包括以下内容:(1)请教师评委对学生的临床推理能力进行分类;(2)选择与临床推理概念一致的特定院校评估数据;(3)计算评估数据与教师判断之间的相关性;(4)建立评估数据与教师判断之间的回归模型:教员对学生临床推理能力的判断被转换为临床推理斗争的连续变量,232 名 UUSOM 学生和 199 名 CUSOM 学生的平均(标清)评分分别为 2.93(0.27)和 2.96(0.17)。UUSOM 和 CUSOM 分别包含了 67 个和 32 个离散评估变量。许多单个和综合评估变量与教师的判断之间存在中度到高度的皮尔逊相关性。回归模型显示,调整后的总体 R2(估计标准误差)分别为:俄大第一批学生 0.50(0.19),俄大第二批学生 0.28(0.15),俄中第一批学生 0.30(0.14):本研究是对回归分析的早期务实探索,将其作为一种潜在的工具,用于落实计划评估的比例原则和三角测量原则。研究发现,方案评估可能是对临床推理等复杂结构进行纵向评估的有用框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
期刊最新文献
Irony. Teaching Opportunities for Postgraduate Trainees in Primary Care. How Many Is Too Many? Using Cognitive Load Theory to Determine the Maximum Safe Number of Inpatient Consultations for Trainees. "Making Space for More People, More Perspectives, and More Ideas": How Medical Education Journal Editors View Their Role in Capacity Building. A Phenomenological Exploration of Physicians' Moral Distress: Situating Emotion Within Lived Experiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1