OBJECTIVES: Key-feature questions (KFQs) have been developed to assess clinical reasoning skills. The purpose of this paper is to review the published evidence on the reliability and validity of KFQs to assess clinical reasoning. METHODS: A literature review was conducted by searching MEDLINE (1946-2012) and EMBASE (1980-2012) via OVID and ERIC. The following search terms were used: key feature; question or test or tests or testing or tested or exam; assess or evaluation, and case-based or case-specific. Articles not in English were eliminated. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 560 articles. Duplicates were eliminated, as were articles that were not relevant; nine articles that contained reliability or validity data remained. A review of the references and of citations of these articles resulted in an additional 12 articles to give a total of 21 for this review. Format, language and scoring of KFQ examinations have been studied and modified to maximise reliability. Internal consistency reliability has been reported as being between 0.49 and 0.95. Face and content validity have been shown to be moderate to high. Construct validity has been shown to be good using vector thinking processes and novice versus expert paradigms, and to discriminate between teaching methods. The very modest correlations between KFQ examinations and more general knowledge-based examinations point to differing roles for each. Importantly, the results of KFQ examinations have been shown to successfully predict future physician performance, including patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although it is inaccurate to conclude that any testing format is universally reliable or valid, published research supports the use of examinations using KFQs to assess clinical reasoning. The review identifies areas of further study, including all categories of evidence. Investigation into how examinations using KFQs integrate with other methods in a system of assessment is needed.
OBJECTIVES: Key-feature questions (KFQs) have been developed to assess clinical reasoning skills. The purpose of this paper is to review the published evidence on the reliability and validity of KFQs to assess clinical reasoning. METHODS: A literature review was conducted by searching MEDLINE (1946-2012) and EMBASE (1980-2012) via OVID and ERIC. The following search terms were used: key feature; question or test or tests or testing or tested or exam; assess or evaluation, and case-based or case-specific. Articles not in English were eliminated. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 560 articles. Duplicates were eliminated, as were articles that were not relevant; nine articles that contained reliability or validity data remained. A review of the references and of citations of these articles resulted in an additional 12 articles to give a total of 21 for this review. Format, language and scoring of KFQ examinations have been studied and modified to maximise reliability. Internal consistency reliability has been reported as being between 0.49 and 0.95. Face and content validity have been shown to be moderate to high. Construct validity has been shown to be good using vector thinking processes and novice versus expert paradigms, and to discriminate between teaching methods. The very modest correlations between KFQ examinations and more general knowledge-based examinations point to differing roles for each. Importantly, the results of KFQ examinations have been shown to successfully predict future physician performance, including patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although it is inaccurate to conclude that any testing format is universally reliable or valid, published research supports the use of examinations using KFQs to assess clinical reasoning. The review identifies areas of further study, including all categories of evidence. Investigation into how examinations using KFQs integrate with other methods in a system of assessment is needed.