Medical students’ thought process while solving problems in 3 different types of clinical assessments in Korea: clinical performance examination, multimedia case-based assessment, and modified essay question
1
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose This study aimed to explore students’ cognitive patterns while solving clinical problems in 3 different types of assessments—clinical performance examination (CPX), multimedia case-based assessment (CBA), and modified essay question (MEQ)—and thereby to understand how different types of assessments stimulate different patterns of thinking. Methods A total of 6 test-performance cases from 2 fourth-year medical students were used in this cross-case study. Data were collected through one-on-one interviews using a stimulated recall protocol where students were shown videos of themselves taking each assessment and asked to elaborate on what they were thinking. The unit of analysis was the smallest phrases or sentences in the participants’ narratives that represented a meaningful cognitive occurrence. The narrative data were reorganized chronologically and then analyzed according to the hypothetico-deductive reasoning framework for clinical reasoning. Results Both participants demonstrated similar proportional frequencies of clinical reasoning patterns on the same clinical assessments. The results also revealed that the three different assessment types may stimulate different patterns of clinical reasoning. For example, the CPX strongly promoted the participants’ reasoning related to inquiry strategy, while the MEQ strongly promoted hypothesis generation. Similarly, data analysis and synthesis by the participants were more strongly stimulated by the CBA than by the other assessment types. Conclusion This study found that different assessment designs stimulated different patterns of thinking during problem-solving. This finding can contribute to the search for ways to improve current clinical assessments. Importantly, the research method used in this study can be utilized as an alternative way to examine the validity of clinical assessments.
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to explore students’ cognitive patterns while solving clinical problems in 3 different types of assessments—clinical performance examination (CPX), multimedia case-based assessment (CBA), and modified essay question (MEQ)—and thereby to understand how different types of assessments stimulate different patterns of thinking. Methods A total of 6 test-performance cases from 2 fourth-year medical students were used in this cross-case study. Data were collected through one-on-one interviews using a stimulated recall protocol where students were shown videos of themselves taking each assessment and asked to elaborate on what they were thinking. The unit of analysis was the smallest phrases or sentences in the participants’ narratives that represented a meaningful cognitive occurrence. The narrative data were reorganized chronologically and then analyzed according to the hypothetico-deductive reasoning framework for clinical reasoning. Results Both participants demonstrated similar proportional frequencies of clinical reasoning patterns on the same clinical assessments. The results also revealed that the three different assessment types may stimulate different patterns of clinical reasoning. For example, the CPX strongly promoted the participants’ reasoning related to inquiry strategy, while the MEQ strongly promoted hypothesis generation. Similarly, data analysis and synthesis by the participants were more strongly stimulated by the CBA than by the other assessment types. Conclusion This study found that different assessment designs stimulated different patterns of thinking during problem-solving. This finding can contribute to the search for ways to improve current clinical assessments. Importantly, the research method used in this study can be utilized as an alternative way to examine the validity of clinical assessments.
참고문헌 (13)
- 조정진, "3개년도 가정의학과 전문의 자격시험에서 임상진료시험 결과 및 필기시험 성적 간의 상관관계", Korean Journal of Medical Education, 23(4), pp.315~322 (2011), 한국의학교육학회
- 황지영, "의학과 학생들에서 임상실기 점수와 관련된 의학지식 지필시험 내용", Korean Journal of Medical Education, 23(4), pp.305~314 (2011), 한국의학교육학회
- R M Harden, "Assessment of clinical competence using objective structured examination", BMJ, 1(5955), pp.447~451 (1975), BMJ[DOI]
- Ronald M Harden, "Revisiting ‘Assessment of clinical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)’", Medical Education, 50(4), pp.376~379 (2016), Wiley[DOI]
- W.G. IRWIN, "The cognitive structure of the modified essay question", Medical Education, 16(6), pp.326~331 (1982), Wiley[DOI]
- Edward J Palmer, "Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper", BMC Medical Education, 7(1), pp.49~ (2007), Springer Science and Business Media LLC[DOI]
- Choi I, "Handbook on design in educational technology", pp.230~240 (2013), Routledge
- Kun Hwang, "Clinical Performance Assessment as a Model of Korean Medical Licensure Examination", Korean Journal of Medical Education, 13(2), pp.277~287 (2001), Korean Society of Medical Education[DOI]
- G.A. Klein, "Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 19(3), pp.462~472 (1989), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)[DOI]
- Barrows HS, "Problem-based learning applied to medical education" (1994), Southern Illinois University
- Barrows HS, "Problem-based learning: an approach in medical education" (1980), Springer Publishing Company
- Crandall B, "Working minds: a practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis" (2006), The MIT Press
- Robert R. Hoffman, "Use of the Critical Decision Method to Elicit Expert Knowledge: A Case Study in the Methodology of Cognitive Task Analysis", Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40(2), pp.254~276 (2016), SAGE Publications[DOI]