ArticleBMC medical education2020
Validity, reliability and feasibility of a new observation rating tool and a post encounter rating tool for the assessment of clinical reasoning skills of medical students during their internal medicine clerkship: a pilot study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2020. 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.
- Developing and Validating a Coding Scheme for Clinical Reasoning in History Taking Using Generative AI-Based Virtual Patients: Systematic Text Condensation Approach.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- An art-based labyrinth activity workshop experience: a qualitative study on psychological counselor candidates from the perspective of acceptance and commitment therapy.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Large language model evaluation and feedback of transcribed simulated physician-patient verbal interactions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing clinical reasoning ability in fourth-year medical students via an integrative group history-taking with an individual reasoning activity.BMC medical education · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic assessment of clinical reasoning skills of medical students in clinical practice is very difficult. This is partly caused by the lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanisms underlying the process of clinical reasoning.
methodsWe previously developed an observation tool to assess the clinical reasoning skills of medical students during clinical practice. This observation tool consists of an 11-item observation rating form (ORT). In the present study we verified the validity, reliability and feasibility of this tool and of an already existing post-encounter rating tool (PERT) in clinical practice among medical students during the internal medicine clerkship.
resultsSix raters each assessed the same 15 student-patient encounters. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alfa) for the (ORT) was 0.87 (0.71-0.84) and the 5-item (PERT) was 0.81 (0.71-0.87). The intraclass-correlation coefficient for single measurements was poor for both the ORT; 0.32 (p < 0.001) as well as the PERT; 0.36 (p < 0.001). The Generalizability study (G-study) and decision study (D-study) showed that 6 raters are required to achieve a G-coefficient of > 0.7 for the ORT and 7 raters for the PERT. The largest sources of variance are the interaction between raters and students. There was a consistent correlation between the ORT and PERT of 0.53 (p = 0.04).
conclusionsThe ORT and PERT are both feasible, valid and reliable instruments to assess students' clinical reasoning skills in clinical practice.
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.