Comparing Tolerance of Ambiguity in Veterinary and Medical Students

Abstract

Current guidelines suggest that educators in both medical and veterinary professions should do more to ensure that students can tolerate ambiguity. Designing curricula to achieve this requires the ability to measure and understand differences in ambiguity tolerance among and within professional groups. Although scales have been developed to measure tolerance of ambiguity in both medical and veterinary professions, no comparative studies have been reported. We compared the tolerance of ambiguity of medical and veterinary students, hypothesizing that veterinary students would have higher tolerance of ambiguity, given the greater patient diversity and less well-established evidence base underpinning practice. We conducted a secondary analysis of questionnaire data from first- to fourth-year medical and veterinary students. Tolerance of ambiguity scores were calculated and compared using the TAMSAD scale (29 items validated for the medical student population), the TAVS scale (27 items validated for the veterinary student population), and a scale comprising the 22 items common to both scales. Using the TAMSAD and TAVS scales, medical students had a significantly higher mean tolerance of ambiguity score than veterinary students (56.1 vs. 54.1, p<.001 and 60.4 vs. 58.5, p=.002, respectively) but no difference was seen when only the 22 shared items were compared (56.1 vs. 57.2, p=.513). The results do not support our hypothesis and highlight that different findings can result when different tools are used. Medical students may have slightly higher tolerance of ambiguity than veterinary students, although this depends on the scale used.

Context Matters: The Impact of Context on Uncertainty Tolerance Scales in Academic Medicine

“…This was supported in our previous study that compared ambiguity tolerance between these 2 distinct professional populations. 3 We agree with Stephens and colleagues that caution should be exercised when scales with questionable reliability and validity are used for high-stakes decisions. However, there is a risk that we might discount promising research tools, such as the TAMSAD, if we do not consider the contexts in which they have been applied to previously and the implications of these contexts on the findings.…”

“…2 Typical meta-analytic processes require judgments for determining whether studies are similar enough to make metaanalysis sensible. 3 It is debatable whether the experiences of veterinary students are substantively unique from medical students, with evidence suggesting more similarities than differences. For instance, these populations have similar matriculation and training requirements.…”

“…This was supported in our previous study that compared ambiguity tolerance between these 2 distinct professional populations. 3…”

Tolerance of ambiguity and psychological well‐being in medical training: A systematic review

“…Unfortunately, there appeared to be little justification regarding changes to scale design, item inclusion, scoring or consideration of the impact this may have on scale validity in the population studied. This is problematic as it has been demonstrated that seemingly small technical decisions in scale design in this field can have significant implications for the findings …”

Large Language Models and Their Implications on Medical Education

“…One AI software is ChatGPT, a free and widely available program said to be bringing about "the end of essays as an assignment for education." 3 The use of this software seems inevitable when applicants already spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on outside application help. 2 With little time to prepare, stakeholders must weigh the risks and benefits of ChatGPT in the application process.…”