Literature DB >> 25725935

Assessing clinical reasoning (ASCLIRE): Instrument development and validation.

Olga Kunina-Habenicht1, Wolf E Hautz2,3, Michel Knigge4,5, Claudia Spies6, Olaf Ahlers7,8.   

Abstract

Clinical reasoning is an essential competency in medical education. This study aimed at developing and validating a test to assess diagnostic accuracy, collected information, and diagnostic decision time in clinical reasoning. A norm-referenced computer-based test for the assessment of clinical reasoning (ASCLIRE) was developed, integrating the entire clinical decision process. In a cross-sectional study participants were asked to choose as many diagnostic measures as they deemed necessary to diagnose the underlying disease of six different cases with acute or sub-acute dyspnea and provide a diagnosis. 283 students and 20 content experts participated. In addition to diagnostic accuracy, respective decision time and number of used relevant diagnostic measures were documented as distinct performance indicators. The empirical structure of the test was investigated using a structural equation modeling approach. Experts showed higher accuracy rates and lower decision times than students. In a cross-sectional comparison, the diagnostic accuracy of students improved with the year of study. Wrong diagnoses provided by our sample were comparable to wrong diagnoses in practice. We found an excellent fit for a model with three latent factors-diagnostic accuracy, decision time, and choice of relevant diagnostic information-with diagnostic accuracy showing no significant correlation with decision time. ASCLIRE considers decision time as an important performance indicator beneath diagnostic accuracy and provides evidence that clinical reasoning is a complex ability comprising diagnostic accuracy, decision time, and choice of relevant diagnostic information as three partly correlated but still distinct aspects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical reasoning; Computer-based assessment; Decision speed; Diagnostic accuracy; Medical education; Validation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25725935     DOI: 10.1007/s10459-015-9596-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract        ISSN: 1382-4996            Impact factor:   3.853


  7 in total

1.  Diagnostic error increases mortality and length of hospital stay in patients presenting through the emergency room.

Authors:  Wolf E Hautz; Juliane E Kämmer; Stefanie C Hautz; Thomas C Sauter; Laura Zwaan; Aristomenis K Exadaktylos; Tanja Birrenbach; Volker Maier; Martin Müller; Stefan K Schauber
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Collective intelligence in medical decision-making: a systematic scoping review.

Authors:  Kate Radcliffe; Helena C Lyson; Jill Barr-Walker; Urmimala Sarkar
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 2.796

3.  Assessing Clinical Reasoning: Targeting the Higher Levels of the Pyramid.

Authors:  Harish Thampy; Emma Willert; Subha Ramani
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Clinical reasoning for acute dyspnoea: comparison between final-year medical students from discipline- and competency-based undergraduate programmes.

Authors:  Anja Czeskleba; Ylva Holzhausen; Harm Peters
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 2.463

5.  Automated identification of diagnostic labelling errors in medicine.

Authors:  Wolf E Hautz; Moritz M Kündig; Roger Tschanz; Tanja Birrenbach; Alexander Schuster; Thomas Bürkle; Stefanie C Hautz; Thomas C Sauter; Gert Krummrey
Journal:  Diagnosis (Berl)       Date:  2021-10-21

6.  Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment.

Authors:  Juliane E Kämmer; Stefan K Schauber; Stefanie C Hautz; Fabian Stroben; Wolf E Hautz
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 7.647

7.  Do different response formats affect how test takers approach a clinical reasoning task? An experimental study on antecedents of diagnostic accuracy using a constructed response and a selected response format.

Authors:  Stefan K Schauber; Stefanie C Hautz; Juliane E Kämmer; Fabian Stroben; Wolf E Hautz
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 3.853

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.