Evaluating script concordance tests (SCTs) through the lens of Bayesian reasoning: Enhancing assessment in medical education.

Luc Dauchet, Raphaël Bentegeac, Haress Ghauss, Marc Hazzan, Patrick Truffert, Philippe Amouyel, Victoria Gauthier, Aghiles Hamroun
{"title":"Evaluating script concordance tests (SCTs) through the lens of Bayesian reasoning: Enhancing assessment in medical education.","authors":"Luc Dauchet, Raphaël Bentegeac, Haress Ghauss, Marc Hazzan, Patrick Truffert, Philippe Amouyel, Victoria Gauthier, Aghiles Hamroun","doi":"10.1016/j.jeph.2024.202804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Script Concordance Tests (SCTs) represent an innovative assessment method which have been introduced in the 2024 French National Ranking Examinations (EDN). These tests compare a student's clinical reasoning with that of a panel of experts under conditions of uncertainty. Typically, the question involves the impact of new information on an initially proposed hypothesis, with answers given on a Likert scale.</p><p><strong>Main findings: </strong>This article aims to didactically illustrate how SCTs are consistent with probabilistic reasoning as modeled by Bayes' theorem. In addition, by comparing SCT writing guidelines with Bayesian reasoning concepts, several ambiguities were identified: (1) What stage of clinical reasoning do SCTs evaluate? (2) What are the appropriate labels for Likert scale responses? (3) Does the expert panel provide a relevant reference for SCTs?</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Currently, many of these questions remain unanswered in the literature, with recent data suggesting that experienced physicians' responses to SCTs are often biased. Beyond their use as an assessment tool in the EDN, SCTs offer a valuable opportunity to develop and deepen the teaching of probabilistic reasoning in medical education and serve as a potential area of research to improve clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":517428,"journal":{"name":"Journal of epidemiology and population health","volume":"73 1","pages":"202804"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of epidemiology and population health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeph.2024.202804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Script Concordance Tests (SCTs) represent an innovative assessment method which have been introduced in the 2024 French National Ranking Examinations (EDN). These tests compare a student's clinical reasoning with that of a panel of experts under conditions of uncertainty. Typically, the question involves the impact of new information on an initially proposed hypothesis, with answers given on a Likert scale.

Main findings: This article aims to didactically illustrate how SCTs are consistent with probabilistic reasoning as modeled by Bayes' theorem. In addition, by comparing SCT writing guidelines with Bayesian reasoning concepts, several ambiguities were identified: (1) What stage of clinical reasoning do SCTs evaluate? (2) What are the appropriate labels for Likert scale responses? (3) Does the expert panel provide a relevant reference for SCTs?

Conclusions: Currently, many of these questions remain unanswered in the literature, with recent data suggesting that experienced physicians' responses to SCTs are often biased. Beyond their use as an assessment tool in the EDN, SCTs offer a valuable opportunity to develop and deepen the teaching of probabilistic reasoning in medical education and serve as a potential area of research to improve clinical practice.

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
从贝叶斯推理的角度评价文字一致性测试:加强医学教育中的评估。
背景:文字一致性测试(SCTs)是2024年法国国家排名考试(EDN)中引入的一种创新的评估方法。这些测试将学生的临床推理与专家小组在不确定条件下的推理进行比较。通常,这个问题涉及新信息对最初提出的假设的影响,并以李克特量表给出答案。主要发现:本文旨在从教学角度说明sct如何与贝叶斯定理建模的概率推理相一致。此外,通过比较SCT写作指南与贝叶斯推理概念,发现了几个含糊之处:(1)SCT评估临床推理的哪个阶段?(2)李克特量表反应的适当标签是什么?(3)专家组是否为SCTs提供相关参考?结论:目前,许多这些问题在文献中仍然没有答案,最近的数据表明,经验丰富的医生对sct的反应往往是有偏见的。除了作为EDN的评估工具之外,sct还提供了一个宝贵的机会来发展和深化医学教育中的概率推理教学,并作为一个潜在的研究领域来改善临床实践。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Predicting hepatocellular carcinoma in people with hepatitis B: a comparison between Cox proportional hazard and machine learning models. Area-based socioeconomic inequalities in cervical cancer screening coverage in France. Trends in Firearm-related Mortality in Pennsylvania, 2012-2023. The longitudinal impact of childhood vision impairment on health, education, physical activity, and social outcomes: A systematic review. Comment on "Follow-up of cancer incidence associated with smoke-related PM2.5 exposure due to a coal mine fire".
×
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:604180095
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