Literature DB >> 21752077

Authenticity of instruction and student performance: a prospective randomised trial.

Jeffrey S La Rochelle1, Steven J Durning, Louis N Pangaro, Anthony R Artino, Cees P M van der Vleuten, Lambert Schuwirth.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the authenticity of instructional formats and outcome measures within a pre-clerkship clinical reasoning course.
METHODS: We conducted a randomised, prospective, crossover study with Year 2 medical students taking a pre-clerkship clinical reasoning course. Students were randomised to small groups and exposed to three formats of differing instructional authenticity (paper case, DVD presentation, standardised patient [SP] presentation) across three subject areas (abdominal pain, anaemia, polyuria). Three student cohorts were taught using one instructional format per subject area so that each cohort received a different instructional format for each of the three subject areas. Outcome measures (objective structured clinical examination, video quiz, written examination) were selected to determine the effect of each instructional format on the clinical reasoning of students.
RESULTS: Increasingly authentic instructional formats did not significantly improve clinical reasoning performance across all outcome measures and subject areas. However, the results of the video quiz showed significant differences in the anaemia subject area between students who had been instructed using the paper case and live SP-based formats (scores of 47.4 and 57.6, respectively; p = 0.01) and in the abdominal pain subject area, in which students instructed using the DVD format scored higher than students instructed using either the paper case or SP-based formats (scores of 41.6, 34.9 and 31.2, respectively; p=0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the authenticity of instructional formats does not appear to significantly improve clinical reasoning performance in a pre-clerkship course. Medical educators should balance increases in authenticity with factors such as cognitive load, subject area and learner experience when designing new instructional formats. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2011.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21752077     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03994.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  6 in total

1.  Reflecting on Diagnostic Errors: Taking a Second Look is Not Enough.

Authors:  Sandra D Monteiro; Jonathan Sherbino; Ameen Patel; Ian Mazzetti; Geoffrey R Norman; Elizabeth Howey
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Virtual Simulation to Enhance Clinical Reasoning in Nursing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jia Jia Marcia Sim; Khairul Dzakirin Bin Rusli; Betsy Seah; Tracy Levett-Jones; Ying Lau; Sok Ying Liaw
Journal:  Clin Simul Nurs       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 2.856

3.  Pre-clerkship clinical skills and clinical reasoning course performance: Explaining the variance in clerkship performance : Pre-clerkship predictors of clerkship variance.

Authors:  Jeffrey S LaRochelle; Ting Dong; Steven J Durning
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2016-08

4.  How can we teach medical students to choose wisely? A randomised controlled cross-over study of video- versus text-based case scenarios.

Authors:  Sascha Ludwig; Nikolai Schuelper; Jamie Brown; Sven Anders; Tobias Raupach
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 8.775

5.  Teaching clinical reasoning by making thinking visible: an action research project with allied health clinical educators.

Authors:  Clare Delany; Clinton Golding
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  An exploratory study into the effect of time-restricted internet access on face-validity, construct validity and reliability of postgraduate knowledge progress testing.

Authors:  Marja G K Dijksterhuis; Izabela Jozwiak; Didi D M Braat; Fedde Scheele
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 2.463

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.