Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32140874›Full record

ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2020

A think-aloud study to inform the design of radiograph interpretation practice.

Jong-Sung Yoon, Kathy Boutis, Martin R Pecaric, Nancy R Fefferman, K Anders Ericsson, Martin V Pusic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jong-Sung YoonDepartment of Psychology, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA.
Kathy BoutisDept. of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Martin R PecaricContrail Consulting Services, Toronto, Canada.
Nancy R FeffermanDepartment of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA.
K Anders EricssonDepartment of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Martin V PusicDepartment of Emergency Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA. martin.pusic@childrens.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5236-6598

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Models for diagnostic reasoning in radiology have been based on the observed behaviors of experienced radiologists but have not directly focused on the thought processes of novices as they improve their accuracy of image interpretation. By collecting think-aloud verbal reports, the current study was designed to investigate differences in specific thought processes between medical students (novices) as they learn and radiologists (experts), so that we can better design future instructional environments. Seven medical students and four physicians with radiology training were asked to interpret and diagnose pediatric elbow radiographs where fracture is suspected. After reporting their diagnosis of a case, they were given immediate feedback. Participants were asked to verbalize their thoughts while completing the diagnosis and while they reflected on the provided feedback. The protocol analysis of their verbalizations showed that participants used some combination of four processes to interpret the case: gestalt interpretation, purposeful search, rule application, and reasoning from a prior case. All types of processes except reasoning from a prior case were applied significantly more frequently by experts. Further, gestalt interpretation was used with higher frequency in abnormal cases while purposeful search was used more often for normal cases. Our assessment of processes could help guide the design of instructional environments with well-curated image banks and analytics to facilitate the novice's journey to expertise in image interpretation.

Indexed as

Clinical ReasoningClinical CompetenceCognitionEducation, MedicalFemaleHumansLearningMaleRadiologyYoung AdultCognitionEducation (medical)Emergency medicineInstructional designRadiology

Identifiers

PMID32140874
PMCPMC7471179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.