ArticleWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2021
[Situational judgement test as teaching method for the critical discussion on scientific practice and misconduct].
Article in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific competence and decision-making processes are key qualifications in undergraduate medical education and should be integrated into medical studies from the very beginning. The aim of the study was to convey the topics of good scientific practice and scientific misconduct. Furthermore, the methodological intervention "group discussion" enabled a productive reflection in the context of scientific appropriateness. For this purpose, the situational judgement test (SJT) was employed at different didactic activity levels of students (N = 743) (individually and as a group). The rating results were compared with the answers of experts (N = 23). Following group discussions, the answers of students shifted (distribution and order of answer options) towards those of the experts; however, students were more likely to choose response options that implied seeking help, allowing a passive stance and transferring responsibility. Overall, the SJT was a successful didactic intervention. The students actively reviewed the topics, discussed the subjects deeply and thereby critically reflected their own behavior.
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.