ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2019
Combination of different clinical reasoning tests in a national exam.
Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Teaching clinical reasoning to undergraduate medical students by illness script method: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2021Trial
- Expanding on "Analyzing Patterns in Anesthesiology Residents' Exam Performance Using Data Mining Techniques".Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2025Article
- The Relationship between Experiences Level and Clinical Decision-Making Skill in Midwifery Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2022Article
- A scoping review of clinical reasoning research with Asian healthcare professionals.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2021Article
- How to develop clinical reasoning in medical students and interns based on illness script theory: An experimental study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical reasoning as a critical and high level of clinical competency should be acquired during medical education, and medical educators should attempt to assess this ability in medical students. Nowadays, there are several ways to evaluate medical students' clinical reasoning ability in different countries worldwide. There are some well-known clinical reasoning tests such as Key Feature (KF), Clinical Reasoning Problem (CRP), Script Concordance Test (SCT), and Comprehensive Integrative Puzzle (CIP). Each of these tests has its advantages and disadvantages. In this study, we evaluated the reliability of combination of clinical reasoning tests SCT, KF, CIP, and CRP in one national exam and the correlation between the subtest scores of these tests together with the total score of the exam.
methodsIn this cross sectional study, a total number of 339 high ranked medical students from 60 medical schools in Iran participated in a national exam named "Medical Olympiad". The ninth Medical Olympiad was held in Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education in summer 2017. The expert group designed a combination of four types of clinical reasoning tests to assess both analytical and non-analytical clinical reasoning. Mean scores of SCT, CRP, KF, and CIP were measured using descriptive statistics. Reliability was calculated for each test and the combination of tests using Cronbach's alpha. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between the score of each subtest and the total score. SPSS version 21 was used for data analysis and the level of significance was considered <0.05.
resultsThe reliability of the combination of tests was 0.815. The reliability of KF was 0.81 and 0.76, 0.80, and 0.92 for SCT, CRP, and CIP, respectively. The mean total score was 169.921±41.54 from 240. All correlations between each clinical reasoning test and total score were significant (P<0.001). The highest correlation (0.887) was seen between CIP score and total score.
conclusionThe study showed that combining different clinical reasoning tests can be a reliable way of measuring this ability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.