ArticleBMC medical education2025
Developing clinical reasoning along the cognitive continuum: a mixed methods evaluation of a novel Clinical Diagnosis Assessment.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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.
- Strengthening novice diagnostic problem solving through explicit metacognitive scaffolding in emergency medicine education.Medical education online · 2026Article
- AI-induced never-skilling in medical education.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- 10 tips for clinical educators in designing and delivering learning experiences to improve clinical reasoning for medical students.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical reasoning is a professional capability required for clinical practice. In preclinical training, clinical reasoning is often taught implicitly, and feedback is focused on discrete outcomes of decision-making. This makes it challenging to provide meaningful feedback on the often-hidden metacognitive process of reasoning to address specific clinical reasoning difficulties. Therefore, we designed the Clinical Diagnosis Assessment, an assessment for learning, to explicitly train Type 1 and Type 2 reasoning skills in optometry students. Decision justification was included to prompt reflective practice and expose metacognitive reasoning. By manipulating assessment task features, we aimed to broaden students' experience with clinical reasoning strategies and identify specific clinical reasoning challenges.
methodsThe Clinical Diagnosis Assessment was designed with two parts; to explicitly train Type 1 and Type 2 clinical reasoning strategies respectively. A validated clinical reasoning measure, the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory for Optometry was used to measure change in clinical reasoning skill. Clinical Diagnosis Assessment and Diagnostic Thinking Inventory scores were quantitatively compared against written exams and OSCEs. Focus groups explored student perception and approach to the assessment.
resultsOut of a total of 67 second-year Optometry students, 55 students (82%) completed the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory for Optometry, 50 students (75%) consented to use of assessment scores and 17 students (26%) participated in focus groups. Quantitative analysis indicated modest but significant Pearson coefficients of determination between Clinical Diagnosis Assessment and OSCE performance (p < .05, r
conclusionsThe assessment exposed students underlying thinking, allowing identification of a range of clinical reasoning difficulties such as semantic transformation, prioritization, management planning, cognitive bias and managing diagnostic uncertainty. Better understanding of clinical reasoning difficulties will allow targeted remediation and inform curriculum design. The Clinical Diagnosis Assessment improves clinical reasoning skill, while promoting execution and awareness of discreet clinical reasoning strategies.
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.