RESULTSOf the 105 articles suitable for review, 75 (72%) were justification studies, 17 (16%) were description studies, and 13 (12%) were clarification studies. Experimental studies of assessment methods (5 ⁄ 6, 83%) and interventions aimed at knowledge and attitudes (5 ⁄ 28, 18%) were more likely to be clarification studies than were studies addressing other educational topics (< 8%).CONCLUSIONS Clarification studies are uncommon in experimental studies in medical education. Studies with this purpose (i.e. studies asking: ÔHow and why does it work?Õ) are needed to deepen our understanding and advance the art and science of medical education. We hope that this framework stimulates education scholars to reflect on the purpose of their inquiry and the research questions they ask, and to strive to ask more clarification questions.
Context In a recent study of the quality of reporting experimental studies in medical education, barely half the articles examined contained an explicit statement of the conceptual framework used. Conceptual frameworks represent ways of thinking about a problem or a study, or ways of representing how complex things work. They can come from theories, models or best practices. Conceptual frameworks illuminate and magnify one’s work. Different frameworks will emphasise different variables and outcomes, and their inter‐relatedness. Educators and researchers constantly use conceptual frameworks to guide their work, even if they themselves are not consciously aware of the frameworks. Methods Three examples are provided on how conceptual frameworks can be used to cast development and research projects in medical education. The examples are accompanied by commentaries and a total of 13 key points about the nature and use of conceptual frameworks. Conclusions Ultimately, scholars are responsible for making explicit the assumptions and principles contained in the conceptual framework(s) they use in their development and research projects.
This paper describes variables critical to diagnostic thinking that are based on research by Bordage and Grant & Marsden on the diagnostic thinking of medical students and experienced doctors. The purpose of the study is to use their findings to develop an inventory of diagnostic thinking. A 56-item diagnostic thinking inventory was initially developed; each item contains a stem followed by a 6-point, semantic differential scale. The inventory is designed to measure two aspects of diagnostic thinking: the degree of flexibility in thinking and the degree of knowledge structure in memory. The specific goal of the study is to determine which items discriminate best between weaker and stronger diagnosticians and to reduce the inventory to only those items which significantly contribute to the overall score. Thirty subjects from nine groups, each representing a distinct phase of medical education and clinical practice, participated, namely first- and third-year clinical medical students, house officers, senior house officers, registrars, senior registrars, consultants, trainees in general practice, and general practitioners, all from the UK (n = 270). Discrimination indices were calculated for each item. The revised version of the inventory contains 41 items. All the subjects found the exercise meaningful and the resulting scores showed variance and discrimination. The inventory will eventually be used to assess individual student's and clinician's diagnostic thinking and to plan ways of improving their diagnostic thinking.
The quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education was generally poor. Criteria are proposed as a starting point for establishing reporting standards for medical education research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.