Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42539560›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

First-year medical students' expectations and early experiences of learning critical thinking: a qualitative study.

Moteeb Alhamidani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Moteeb AlhamidaniKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Developing critical thinking (CT) is important in medical education because it supports clinical reasoning and decision-making. However, students may struggle to engage with these skills when students' learning expectations are unclear or inconsistent with their educational experiences. Understanding how students' expectations shape their early learning encounters is important for supporting successful transition into medical education. This study explored first-year medical students' expectations of learning critical thinking and how those expectations were reflected in their subsequent experiences in a science course. Methods: A qualitative descriptive design, situated within an interpretivist epistemology, was employed. Seven first-year undergraduate medical students at a medical school were recruited through purposive sampling and interviewed individually. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four themes were identified: (1) expectations before entering the course, (2) early encounters with course reality, (3) alignment and misalignment between expectations and experience, and (4) shifting interpretation of critical thinking over time. Students expected critical thinking to involve analytical reasoning and problem-solving. Early course experiences either confirmed or challenged these expectations. When expectations and experiences diverged, students reported uncertainty about course aims. Over time, students actively reinterpreted what critical thinking meant in their specific course context. Discussion: The findings suggest that expectations appeared to operate as interpretive filters, shaping how students engaged with early learning activities, and that clarity about learning aims reduces uncertainty during early course engagement.

Indexed as

critical thinkinglearning experiencemedical educationqualitative researchstudent expectationsundergraduate

Identifiers

PMID42539560
PMCPMC13423980

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.