ArticlePloS one2020
Professional decision-making in medicine: Development of a new measure and preliminary evidence of validity.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Building capacity in translational research ethics among early-stage investigators: A pilot course on the ethics of the clinician-researcher dual-role.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Moral Judgement along the Academic Training.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study developed a new Professional Decision-Making in Medicine Measure that assesses the use of effective decision-making strategies: seek help, manage emotions, recognize consequences and rules, and test assumptions and motives. The aim was to develop a content valid measure and obtain initial evidence for construct validity so that the measure could be used in future research or educational assessment.
methodsClinical scenario-based items were developed based on a review of the literature and interviews with physicians. For each item, respondents are tasked with selecting two responses (out of six plausible options) that they would choose in that situation. Three of the six options reflect a decision-making strategy; these responses are scored as correct. Data were collected from a sample of 318 fourth-year medical students in the United States. They completed a 16-item version of the measure (Form A) and measures of social desirability, moral disengagement, and professionalism attitudes. Professionalism ratings from clerkships were also obtained. A sub-group (n = 63) completed a second 16-item measure (Form B) to pilot test the instrument, as two test forms are useful for pre-posttest designs.
resultsScores on the new measure indicated that, on average, participants answered 75% of items correctly. Evidence for construct validity included the lack of correlation between scores on the measure and socially desirable responding, negative correlation with moral disengagement, and modest to low correlations with professionalism attitudes. A positive correlation was observed with a clerkship rating focused on professionalism in peer interactions.
conclusionsThese findings demonstrate modest proficiency in the use of decision-making strategies among fourth-year medical students. Additional research using the Professional Decision-Making Measure should explore scores among physicians in various career stages, and the causes and correlates of scores. Educators could utilize the measure to assess courses that teach decision-making strategies.
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.