Literature DB >> 23805999

Does the think-aloud protocol reflect thinking? Exploring functional neuroimaging differences with thinking (answering multiple choice questions) versus thinking aloud.

Steven J Durning1, Anthony R Artino, Thomas J Beckman, John Graner, Cees van der Vleuten, Eric Holmboe, Lambert Schuwirth.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether the think-aloud protocol is a valid measure of thinking remains uncertain. Therefore, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate potential functional neuroanatomic differences between thinking (answering multiple-choice questions in real time) versus thinking aloud (on review of items).
METHODS: Board-certified internal medicine physicians underwent formal think-aloud training. Next, they answered validated multiple-choice questions in an fMRI scanner while both answering (thinking) and thinking aloud about the questions, and we compared fMRI images obtained during both periods.
RESULTS: Seventeen physicians (15 men and 2 women) participated in the study. Mean physician age was 39.5 + 7 (range: 32-51 years). The mean number of correct responses was 18.5/32 questions (range: 15-25). Statistically significant differences were found between answering (thinking) and thinking aloud in the following regions: motor cortex, bilateral prefrontal cortex, bilateral cerebellum, and the basal ganglia (p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: We identified significant differences between answering and thinking aloud within the motor cortex, prefrontal cortex, cerebellum, and basal ganglia. These differences were by degree (more focal activation in these areas with thinking aloud as opposed to answering). Prefrontal cortex and cerebellum activity was attributable to working memory. Basal ganglia activity was attributed to the reward of answering a question. The identified neuroimaging differences between answering and thinking aloud were expected based on existing theory and research in other fields. These findings add evidence to the notion that the think-aloud protocol is a reasonable measure of thinking.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23805999     DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.801938

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Teach        ISSN: 0142-159X            Impact factor:   3.650


  12 in total

1.  Can Think Aloud Be Used to Teach and Assess Clinical Reasoning in Graduate Medical Education?

Authors:  Ralph Pinnock; Louise Young; Fiona Spence; Marcus Henning; Wayne Hazell
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2015-09

2.  Exploring Clinical Reasoning Strategies and Test-Taking Behaviors During Clinical Vignette Style Multiple-Choice Examinations: A Mixed Methods Study.

Authors:  Brian Sanjay Heist; Jed David Gonzalo; Steven Durning; Dario Torre; David Michael Elnicki
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2014-12

3.  "I Was Trying to Do the Maths": Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments.

Authors:  Caroline Vass; Dan Rigby; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Problem-solving strategies used in anatomical multiple-choice questions.

Authors:  Klodiana Kolomitro; Leslie W MacKenzie; Mackenzie Lockridge; Diandra Clohosey
Journal:  Health Sci Rep       Date:  2020-12-03

5.  'Think-aloud' protocol for ICU rounds: an assessment of information assimilation and rational thinking among trainees.

Authors:  Shahla Siddiqui
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2014-10-16

6.  Negotiating Tensions Between Theory and Design in the Development of Mailings for People Recovering From Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Authors:  Holly O Witteman; Justin Presseau; Emily Nicholas Angl; Iffat Jokhio; J D Schwalm; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Beth Bosiak; Madhu K Natarajan; Noah M Ivers
Journal:  JMIR Hum Factors       Date:  2017-03-01

Review 7.  Measuring Well-Being in Sport Performers: Where are We Now and How do we Progress?

Authors:  Samuel Giles; David Fletcher; Rachel Arnold; Arabella Ashfield; Joanna Harrison
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 11.136

8.  A mixed-methods exploration of cognitive dispositions to respond and clinical reasoning errors with multiple choice questions.

Authors:  Luke T Surry; Dario Torre; Robert L Trowbridge; Steven J Durning
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2018-11-23       Impact factor: 2.463

9.  Clinical Reasoning in the Primary Care Setting: Two Scenario-Based Simulations for Residents and Attendings.

Authors:  Alexis Battista; Abigail Konopasky; Divya Ramani; Megan Ohmer; Jeffrey Mikita; Anna Howle; Sarah Krajnik; Dario Torre; Steven J Durning
Journal:  MedEdPORTAL       Date:  2018-11-16

10.  Clinical Reasoning in the Ward Setting: A Rapid Response Scenario for Residents and Attendings.

Authors:  Megan Ohmer; Steven J Durning; Walter Kucera; Matthew Nealeigh; Sarah Ordway; Thomas Mellor; Jeffery Mikita; Anna Howle; Sarah Krajnik; Abigail Konopasky; Divya Ramani; Alexis Battista
Journal:  MedEdPORTAL       Date:  2019-09-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.