Can preclinical students improve their clinical reasoning skills only by taking case-based online testlets? A randomized controlled study

被引:5
作者
Kiyak, Yavuz Selim [1 ]
Budakoglu, Isil Irem [1 ]
Kalaycioglu, Dilara Bakan [2 ]
Kula, Serdar [3 ]
Coskun, Ozlem [1 ]
机构
[1] Gazi Univ, Dept Med Educ & Informat, Fac Med, Ankara, Turkey
[2] Gazi Univ, Fac Educ, Div Assessment & Evaluat Educ, Ankara, Turkey
[3] Gazi Univ, Dept Pediat, Fac Med, Ankara, Turkey
关键词
Clinical reasoning; preclinical; online test; case-based; illness scripts; online teaching; MEDICAL-STUDENTS; WORKED EXAMPLES; KNOWLEDGE;
D O I
10.1080/14703297.2022.2041458
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
The prominent method to teach clinical reasoning in preclinical years is case-based discussions. It necessitates hours of sessions. A randomised-controlled study has been conducted to determine whether preclinical students can develop illness scripts only by taking online formative testlets. A pre-test-post-test randomised-controlled design has been utilised. The intervention group (N = 20) answered general surgery questions for 18 days, while the control group (N = 19) received questions regarding urinary tract infections. These testlets were comprised of ContExtended Questions, which is a web-based tool to teach clinical reasoning. The performance was assessed by using Key-Feature Questions. While post-test scores were significantly higher than pre-test scores in the intervention group (p < 0.001), there was no statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in the control group (p = 0.30). Taking formative case-based multiple-choice testlets without any additional teaching could assist preclinical students to learn clinical reasoning.
引用
收藏
页码:325 / 334
页数:10
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]   Clinical decision making: a pilot e-learning study [J].
Abendroth, Martin ;
Harendza, Sigrid ;
Riemer, Martin .
CLINICAL TEACHER, 2013, 10 (01) :51-55
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2020, Tip Egitimi Dunyasi, V19, P141, DOI 10.25282/ted.716873
[3]   Instructional Aids to Support a Conceptual Understanding of Multiple Representations [J].
Berthold, Kirsten ;
Renkl, Alexander .
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 101 (01) :70-87
[4]   The key-features approach to assess clinical decisions: validity evidence to date [J].
Bordage, G. ;
Page, G. .
ADVANCES IN HEALTH SCIENCES EDUCATION, 2018, 23 (05) :1005-1036
[5]   The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96 [J].
Brauer, David G. ;
Ferguson, Kristi J. .
MEDICAL TEACHER, 2015, 37 (04) :312-322
[6]   Scripts and clinical reasoning [J].
Charlin, Bernard ;
Boshuizen, Henny P. A. ;
Custers, Eugene J. ;
Feltovich, Paul J. .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2007, 41 (12) :1178-1184
[7]   Reflections on experimental research in medical education [J].
Cook, David A. ;
Beckman, Thomas J. .
ADVANCES IN HEALTH SCIENCES EDUCATION, 2010, 15 (03) :455-464
[8]   Consensus statement on the content of clinical reasoning curricula in undergraduate medical education [J].
Cooper, Nicola ;
Bartlett, Maggie ;
Gay, Simon ;
Hammond, Anna ;
Lillicrap, Mark ;
Matthan, Joanna ;
Singh, Mini .
MEDICAL TEACHER, 2021, 43 (02) :152-159
[9]  
Creswell J.W, 2012, Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative, V4th
[10]  
Downing S.M., 2009, Assessment in health professions education