ArticleBMC medical education2026
Development and validity evidence for the probabilistic reasoning test in undergraduate medical students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScript Concordance Tests (SCT) are widely used to assess clinical reasoning in medical education, but their use in high-stakes examinations raises concerns related to ambiguity, reliance on expert panels, and limited acceptability among students. To address these issues, we developed the Probabilistic Reasoning Test (PRT), a simplified format designed to assess normative probabilistic reasoning within clinical scenarios using a single predetermined correct answer and a three-point response scale.
methodsWe conducted a study including fifth-year medical students, pediatric residents, and pediatricians. Participants completed matched triads of SCT, PRT, and multiple-choice questions (MCQs) based on identical clinical scenarios. Student Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) scores were collected. Outcomes included concordance between SCT and PRT responses, internal consistency, relations with other assessment modalities, score interpretation across experience levels, and participant acceptability.
resultsA total of 575 participants were analyzed (538 students, 19 residents, 18 pediatricians). Concordance between SCT and PRT responses was high (agreement 91.4%, weighted κ = 0.91). Internal consistency was modest and similar for both formats (Cronbach's α = 0.63 for PRT; 0.62 for SCT). PRT scores correlated strongly with SCT, moderately with MCQs, and weakly with OSCE scores (p < 0.05). Unlike SCT, PRT did not significantly discriminate between levels of clinical experience. Satisfaction was consistently higher for PRT, with 90% of participants preferring it over SCT for examinations.
conclusionThe PRT showed strong directional concordance with SCT and higher acceptability in undergraduate settings but limited differentiation across experience levels. It may represent a pragmatic candidate format for undergraduate summative assessment of normative probabilistic reasoning.
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.