Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading  Processing Request

Advancing the assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions: Definitional and methodologic recommendations.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • معلومة اضافية
    • المصدر:
      Publisher: Ubiquity Press Country of Publication: Netherlands NLM ID: 101590643 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2212-277X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 22122761 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Perspect Med Educ Subsets: MEDLINE
    • بيانات النشر:
      Publication: 2023- : [London] : Ubiquity Press
      Original Publication: [Houten] : Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
    • الموضوع:
    • نبذة مختصرة :
      The importance of clinical reasoning in patient care is well-recognized across all health professions. Validity evidence supporting high quality clinical reasoning assessment is essential to ensure health professional schools are graduating learners competent in this domain. However, through the course of a large scoping review, we encountered inconsistent terminology for clinical reasoning and inconsistent reporting of methodology, reflecting a somewhat fractured body of literature on clinical reasoning assessment. These inconsistencies impeded our ability to synthesize across studies and appropriately compare assessment tools. More specifically, we encountered: 1) a wide array of clinical reasoning-like terms that were rarely defined or informed by a conceptual framework, 2) limited details of assessment methodology, and 3) inconsistent reporting of the steps taken to establish validity evidence for clinical reasoning assessments. Consolidating our experience in conducting this review, we provide recommendations on key definitional and methodologic elements to better support the development, description, study, and reporting of clinical reasoning assessments.
      (© 2022. The Author(s).)
    • References:
      Durning SJ, Artino AR Jr, Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C. Clarifying assumptions to enhance our understanding and assessment of clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2013;88:442–8. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182851b5b)
      Gruppen LD. Clinical reasoning: Defining it, teaching it, assessing it, studying it. West J Emerg Med. 2017;18:4–7. (PMID: 10.5811/westjem.2016.11.33191)
      Bowen JL. Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2217–25. (PMID: 10.1056/NEJMra054782)
      National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington: National Academies Press; 2015.
      Graber ML, Rusz D, Jones ML, et al. The new diagnostic team. Diagnosis. 2017;4:225–38. (PMID: 10.1515/dx-2017-0022)
      World Health Organization. Transforming and scaling up health professsional’s education and training: World Health Organization guidelines 2013. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
      Association of American Medical Colleges. The core entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for entering residency. https://www.aamc.org/what-we-do/mission-areas/medical-education/cbme/core-epas . Accessed: 14 June 2021.
      Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Common program requirements. https://www.acgme.org/what-we-do/accreditation/common-program-requirements/ . Accessed: 14 June 2021.
      Frank J, Snell L, Sherbino J, editors. CanMeds 2015 physician competency framework. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2015.
      American Association of Colleges of Nursing. The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. https://www.aacnnursing.org/AACN-Essentials . Accessed: 30 June 2021.
      Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1493–9. (PMID: 10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493)
      Lambe KA, O’Reilly G, Kelly BD, Curristan S. Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25:808–20. (PMID: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004417)
      Graber ML. Educational strategies to reduce diagnostic error: Can you teach this stuff? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14(Suppl 1):63–9. (PMID: 10.1007/s10459-009-9178-y)
      Daniel M, Rencic J, Durning SJ, et al. Clinical reasoning assessment methods: A scoping review and practical guidance. Acad Med. 2019;94:902–12. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002618)
      Young M, Thomas A, Lubarsky S, et al. Drawing boundaries: the difficulty in defining clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2018;93:990–5. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002142)
      Young ME, Thomas A, Lubarsky S, et al. Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: A scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:107. (PMID: 10.1186/s12909-020-02012-9)
      Bordage G. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ. 2009;43:312–9. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03295.x)
      Bordage G, Lineberry M, Yudkowsky R. Conceptual frameworks to guide research and development in health professions education. Acad Med. 2016;91:e2. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001409)
      Young ME, Dory V, Lubarsky S, Thomas A. How different theories of clinical reasoning influence teaching and assessment. Acad Med. 2018;93:1415. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002303)
      DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2017.
      Downing SM, Yudkowsky R. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. (PMID: 10.4324/9780203880135)
      Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: Theory and application. Am J Med. 2006;119:166.e7–166.16. (PMID: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036)
      Downing SM. Validity: On meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37:830–7. (PMID: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x)
      Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Programmatic assessment and Kane’s validity perspective. Med Educ. 2012;46:38–48. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04098.x)
      Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. (PMID: 10.1080/1364557032000119616)
      Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. (PMID: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69)
      Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Durning SJ, Young ME. Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Demystifying scoping reviews. Acad Med. 2017;92:161–6. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001452)
      Adrales GL, Donnelly MB, Chu UB, et al. Determinants of competency judgments by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:323–7. (PMID: 10.1007/s00464-002-8958-8)
      Andersen DK. How can educators use simulation applications to teach and assess surgical judgment? Acad Med. 2012;87:934–41. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182583248)
      Cook DA, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, Hatala R. Technology-enhanced simulation to assess health professionals: a systematic review of validity evidence, research methods, and reporting quality. Acad Med. 2013;88:872–83. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828ffdcf)
      Lynch DC, Surdyk PM, Eiser AR. Assessing professionalism: A review of the literature. Med Teach. 2004;26:366–73. (PMID: 10.1080/01421590410001696434)
      Higgs J, Jenson G, Loftus S, Christensen N, editors. Clinical reasoning in health professions. 4th ed. London: Elsevier; 2018.
      Simmons B. Clinical reasoning: Concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66:1151–8. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x)
      Cianciolo AT, Regehr G. Learning theory and educational intervention: Producing meaningful evidence of impact through layered analysis. Acad Med. 2019;94:789–94. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002591)
      Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E, Charlin B. An analysis of clinical reasoning through a recent and comprehensive approach: The dual-process theory. Med Educ Online. 2011;16:1, https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v16i0.5890 .
      Durning SJ, Artino AR. Situativity theory: A perspective on how participants and the environment can interact: AMEE Guide no. 52. Med Teach. 2011;33:188–99. (PMID: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.550965)
      Ilgen JS, Humbert AJ, Kuhn G, et al. Assessing diagnostic reasoning: A consensus statement summarizing theory, practice, and future needs. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19:1454–61. (PMID: 10.1111/acem.12034)
      Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:387–96. (PMID: 10.1056/NEJMra054784)
      American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association; 2014.
      St-Onge C, Young M, Eva KW, Hodges B. Validity: One word with a plurality of meanings. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017;22:853–67. (PMID: 10.1007/s10459-016-9716-3)
      Messick S. Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol. 1995;50:741–9. (PMID: 10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741)
      Kane MT. An argument-based approach to validation. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:527–35. (PMID: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527)
      Schipper S, Ross S. Structured teaching and assessment: A new chart-stimulated recall worksheet for family medicine residents. Can Fam Physician. 2010;56:958–9.
      Kinnear B, Kelleher M, May B, et al. Constructing a validity map for a workplace-based assessment system: Cross-walking Messick and Kane. Acad Med. 2021;96:S64–S9. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004112)
      Nouh T, Boutros M, Gagnon R, et al. The script concordance test as a measure of clinical reasoning: A national validation study. Am J Surg. 2012;203:530–4. (PMID: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.11.006)
      Williams RG, Klamen DL. Examining the diagnostic justification abilities of fourth-year medical students. Acad Med. 2012;87:1008–14. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31825cfcff)
      Huwendiek S, De Leng BA, Kononowicz AA, et al. Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning. Med Teach. 2015;37:775–82. (PMID: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970622)
      Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097)
      Gonzalo JD, Haidet P, Papp KK, et al. Educating for the 21st-century health care system: An interdependent framework of basic, clinical, and systems sciences. Acad Med. 2017;92:35–9. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000951)
      Saqr M, Tedre M. Should we teach computational thinking and big data principles to medical students? Int J Health Sci. 2019;13:1–2.
      Barken TL, Thygesen E, Söderhamn U. Advancing beyond the system: Telemedicine nurses’ clinical reasoning using a computerised decision support system for patients with COPD—An ethnographic study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17:181. (PMID: 10.1186/s12911-017-0573-7)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Assessment; Clinical reasoning; Conceptual frameworks; Health professions; Validity
    • الموضوع:
      Date Created: 20220307 Date Completed: 20220412 Latest Revision: 20230207
    • الموضوع:
      20231215
    • الرقم المعرف:
      PMC8940991
    • الرقم المعرف:
      10.1007/s40037-022-00701-3
    • الرقم المعرف:
      35254653