Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33977409›Full record

ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2021

Do different response formats affect how test takers approach a clinical reasoning task? An experimental study on antecedents of diagnostic accuracy using a constructed response and a selected response format.

Stefan K Schauber, Stefanie C Hautz, Juliane E Kämmer, Fabian Stroben, Wolf E Hautz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Stefan K SchauberCentre for Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Postboks 1161 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway. stefan.schauber@medisin.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1832-2732
Stefanie C HautzDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital, University of Berne, 3010, Freiburgstrasse, Berne, Switzerland.
Juliane E KämmerCenter for Adaptive Rationality (ARC), Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195, Berlin, Germany.
Fabian StrobenAG Progress Test Medizin, Charité Medical School Berlin, Hannoversche Straße 19, 10115, Berlin, Germany.
Wolf E HautzDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital, University of Berne, 3010, Freiburgstrasse, Berne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of response formats in assessments of medical knowledge and clinical reasoning continues to be the focus of both research and debate. In this article, we report on an experimental study in which we address the question of how much list-type selected response formats and short-essay type constructed response formats are related to differences in how test takers approach clinical reasoning tasks. The design of this study was informed by a framework developed within cognitive psychology which stresses the importance of the interplay between two components of reasoning-self-monitoring and response inhibition-while solving a task or case. The results presented support the argument that different response formats are related to different processing behavior. Importantly, the pattern of how different factors are related to a correct response in both situations seem to be well in line with contemporary accounts of reasoning. Consequently, we argue that when designing assessments of clinical reasoning, it is crucial to tap into the different facets of this complex and important medical process.

Indexed as

Clinical ReasoningProblem SolvingHumansClinical reasoningCognitive reflectionProcessing fluencyResponse format

Identifiers

PMID33977409
PMCPMC8452553

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.