ReviewAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2022
Cognitive diagnostic modelling in healthcare professions education: an eye-opener.
Review in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Score Distribution Patterns to Detect Auscultation Teaching Challenges: An Empirical Study of 284 Medical Undergraduates.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Defining an optimal cut-off for subscales without a gold standard: a novel method using inflection points of latent attribute probabilities and raw scores.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Whole slide imaging in medical education: A comparative study of learning experience and engagement using cognitive diagnostic modeling.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Criticisms about psychometric paradigms currently used in healthcare professions education include claims of reductionism, objectification, and poor compliance with assumptions. Nevertheless, perhaps the most crucial criticism comes from learners' difficulty in interpreting and making meaningful use of summative scores and the potentially detrimental impact these scores have on learners. The term "post-psychometric era" has become popular, despite persisting calls for the sensible use of modern psychometrics. In recent years, cognitive diagnostic modelling has emerged as a new psychometric paradigm capable of providing meaningful diagnostic feedback. Cognitive diagnostic modelling allows the classification of examinees in multiple cognitive attributes. This measurement is obtained by modelling these attributes as categorical, discrete latent variables. Furthermore, items can reflect more than one latent variable simultaneously. The interactions between latent variables can be modelled with flexibility, allowing a unique perspective on complex cognitive processes. These characteristic features of cognitive diagnostic modelling enable diagnostic classification over a large number of constructs of interest, preventing the necessity of providing numerical scores as feedback to test takers. This paper provides an overview of cognitive diagnostic modelling, including an introduction to its foundations and illustrating potential applications, to help teachers be involved in developing and evaluating assessment tools used in healthcare professions education. Cognitive diagnosis may represent a revolutionary new psychometric paradigm, overcoming the known limitations found in frequently used psychometric approaches, offering the possibility of robust qualitative feedback and better alignment with competency-based curricula and modern programmatic assessment frameworks.
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.