Development of knowledge in basic sciences: a comparison of two medical curricula

Nouns, Zineb Miriam; Schauber, Stefan K.; Witt, Claudia M.; Kingreen, Halina; Schüttpelz-Brauns, Katrin

doi:10.1111/medu.12047

Cited by 45 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A slightly different yet similar approach is chosen when researchers perform separate ANOVAs to test for group differences at each time point instead of accounting for the fact that at least considerable proportions of students have taken multiple tests and that students taking the test at some point may have been nested within learning groups [14]. Even if testing for group differences at a specific time point is legitimate from an interest in group differences at that very point in time, ignoring group nesting and the intra-group correlation that goes with it tends to result in an overestimation of the number of independent observations at that time point and this may exaggerate to some extent the statistical significance of a group difference at that time point.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Data analysis in medical education research: a multilevel perspective

Leppink

2015

Perspect Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A substantial part of medical education research focuses on learning in teams (e.g., departments, problem-based learning groups) or centres (e.g., clinics, institutions) that are followed over time. Individual students or employees sharing the same team or centre tend to be more similar in learning than students or employees from different teams or centres. In other words, when students or employees are nested within teams or centres, there is a within-team or within-centre correlation that should be taken into account in the analysis of data obtained from individuals in these teams or centres. Further, when individuals are measured several times on the same performance (or other) variable, these repeated measurements tend to be correlated, that is: we are dealing with an intra-individual correlation that should be taken into account when analyzing data obtained from these individuals. In such a study context, many researchers resort to methods that cannot account for intra-team and/or intra-individual correlation and this may result in incorrect conclusions with regard to effects and relations of interest. This comparison paper presents the benefits which result from adopting a proper multilevel perspective on the conceptualization and estimation of effects and relations of interest.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The papers used as examples of studies in which a multilevel approach should or could have been used [11–14] were not chosen because of a lack of quality. On the contrary, each of the papers discussed presents high-quality research published in a respectable journal.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data analysis in medical education research: a multilevel perspective

Leppink

2015

Perspect Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, we used a relatively specific form of knowledge assessment. Although progress test data have been used previously in related research scenarios, they are summaries of responses to multiple‐choice items and thus reflect only a relatively specific form of assessment of medical knowledge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the role of biomedical knowledge in the acquisition of clinical knowledge

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT Basic science teaching in undergraduate medical education faces several challenges. One prominent discussion is focused on the relevance of biomedical knowledge to the development and integration of clinical knowledge. Although the value of basic science knowledge is generally emphasised, theoretical positions on the relative role of this knowledge and the optimal approach to its instruction differ. The present paper addresses whether and to what extent biomedical knowledge is related to the development of clinical knowledge. METHODSWe analysed repeated-measures data for performances on basic science and clinical knowledge assessments. A sample of 598 medical students on a traditional curriculum participated in the study. The entire study covered a developmental phase of 2 years of medical education. Structural equation modelling was used to analyse the temporal relationship between biomedical knowledge and the acquisition of clinical knowledge. RESULTSAt the point at which formal basic science education ends and clinical training begins, students show the highest levels of biomedical knowledge. The present data suggest a decline in basic science knowledge that is complemented by a growth in clinical knowledge. Statistical comparison of several structural equation models revealed that the model to best explain the data specified unidirectional relationships between earlier states of biomedical knowledge and subsequent changes in clinical knowledge. However, the parameter estimates indicate that this association is negative.DISCUSSION Our analysis suggests a negative relationship between earlier levels of basic science knowledge and subsequent gains in clinical knowledge. We discuss the limitations of the present study, such as the educational context in which it was conducted and its nonexperimental nature. Although the present results do not necessarily contradict the relevance of basic sciences, we speculate on mechanisms that might be related to our findings. We conclude that our results hint at possibly critical issues in basic science education that have been rarely addressed thus far.

show abstract

“…Progress testing has been reported to provide many benefits17 and has been used to monitor knowledge development in basic medical science courses at a medical school in Berlin 18. However, most US medical schools responding to the survey do not administer the NBME CBSE in a manner consistent with progress testing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of the National Board of Medical Examiners<sup>®</sup> Comprehensive Basic Science Exam: survey results of US medical schools

Wright¹,

Baston

2017

AMEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe National Board of Medical Examiners® (NBME) Comprehensive Basic Science Exam (CBSE) is a subject exam offered to US medical schools, where it has been used for external validation of student preparedness for the United States Medical Licensing Examination® (USMLE) Step 1 in new schools and schools undergoing curricular reform. Information regarding the actual use of the NBME CBSE is limited. Therefore, the aim of the survey was to determine the scope and utilization of the NBME CBSE by US medical schools.MethodsA survey was sent in May 2016 to curriculum leadership of the 139 US medical schools listed on the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME®) website with provisional or full accreditation as of February 29, 2016. Responses were received from 53 schools (38% response rate). A series of different follow-up questions were asked if respondents stated “yes” or “no” to the initial question “Does your institution administer the NBME CBSE prior to the USMLE Step 1?”.ResultsA total of 37 schools (70%) administered the NBME CBSE. In all, 36 of the 37 schools responded to follow-up questions. Of 36 schools, 13 schools (36%) used the NBME CBSE for curriculum modification. Six schools (17%) used the NBME CBSE for formative assessment for a course, and five schools (14%) used the NBME CBSE for summative assessment for a course. A total of 28 schools (78%) used the NBME CBSE for identifying students performing below expectations and providing targeted intervention strategies. In all, 24 schools (67%) of the 36 responding schools administering the NBME CBSE administered the test once prior to the administration of the USMLE Step 1, whereas 10 (28%) schools administered the NBME CBSE two or more times prior to the administration of the USMLE Step 1.ConclusionOur data suggest that the NBME CBSE is administered by many US medical schools. However, the objective, timing, and number of exams administered vary greatly among schools.

show abstract

Development of knowledge in basic sciences: a comparison of two medical curricula

Cited by 45 publications

References 24 publications

Data analysis in medical education research: a multilevel perspective

Data analysis in medical education research: a multilevel perspective

On the role of biomedical knowledge in the acquisition of clinical knowledge

Use of the National Board of Medical Examiners<sup>®</sup> Comprehensive Basic Science Exam: survey results of US medical schools

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Development of knowledge in basic sciences: a comparison of two medical curricula

Cited by 45 publications

References 24 publications

Data analysis in medical education research: a multilevel perspective

Data analysis in medical education research: a multilevel perspective

On the role of biomedical knowledge in the acquisition of clinical knowledge

Use of the National Board of Medical Examiners<sup>&reg;</sup> Comprehensive Basic Science Exam: survey results of US medical schools

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Use of the National Board of Medical Examiners<sup>®</sup> Comprehensive Basic Science Exam: survey results of US medical schools