Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
An ongoing debate exists in the medical education literature regarding the potential benefits of pattern recognition (non-analytic reasoning), actively comparing and contrasting diagnostic options (analytic reasoning) or using a combination approach. Studies have not, however, explicitly explored faculty’s thought processes while tackling clinical problems through the lens of dual process theory to inform this debate. Further, these thought processes have not been studied in relation to the difficulty of the task or other potential mediating influences such as personal factors and fatigue, which could also be influenced by personal factors such as sleep deprivation. We therefore sought to determine which reasoning process(es) were used with answering clinically oriented multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and if these processes differed based on the dual process theory characteristics: accuracy, reading time and answering time as well as psychometrically determined item difficulty and sleep deprivation.
We performed a think-aloud procedure to explore faculty’s thought processes while taking these MCQs, coding think-aloud data based on reasoning process (analytic, nonanalytic, guessing or combination of processes) as well as word count, number of stated concepts, reading time, answering time, and accuracy. We also included questions regarding amount of work in the recent past. We then conducted statistical analyses to examine the associations between these measures such as correlations between frequencies of reasoning processes and item accuracy and difficulty. We also observed the total frequencies of different reasoning processes in the situations of getting answers correctly and incorrectly.
Regardless of whether the questions were classified as ‘hard’ or ‘easy’, non-analytical reasoning led to the correct answer more often than to an incorrect answer. Significant correlations were found between self-reported recent number of hours worked with think-aloud word count and number of concepts used in the reasoning but not item accuracy. When all MCQs were included, 19 % of the variance of correctness could be explained by the frequency of expression of these three think-aloud processes (analytic, nonanalytic, or combined).
We found evidence to support the notion that the difficulty of an item in a test is not a systematic feature of the item itself but is always a result of the interaction between the item and the candidate. Use of analytic reasoning did not appear to improve accuracy. Our data suggest that individuals do not apply either System 1 or System 2 but instead fall along a continuum with some individuals falling at one end of the spectrum.
Durning SJ, Artino AR, Schwirth L, Vleuten C van der. Clarifying assumptions to enhance our understanding and assessment of clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2013;88(4):432–8. CrossRef
Berner ES, Hamilton LA, Best WR. A new approach to evaluating problem-solving in medical students. J Med Educ. 1979;49:666–72.
Helfer RE, Slater CH. Measuring the process of solving clinical diagnostic problems. Br J Med Educ. 1971;5:48–52. CrossRef
Swanson DB, Norcini JJ, Grosso LJ. Assessment of clinical competence: written and computer-based simulations. Assess Eval High Educ. 1987;12(3):220–46. CrossRef
Case SM, Swanson DB. Extended-matching items: a practical alternative to free response questions. Teach Learn Med. 1993;5(2):107–15. CrossRef
Bordage G. An alternative approach to PMPʼs: the ‘key-features’ concept. In: Hart IR, Harden R, editors. Proceedings of the second Ottawa Conference on Further Developments in Assessing Clinical Competence. Montreal: Can-Heal Publications Inc; 1987. pp. 59–75.
Charlin B, Brailovsky C, Leduc C, Blouin D. The diagnostic script questionnaire: a new tool to assess a specific dimension of clinical competence. Adv Health Sci Educ. 1998;3:51–8. CrossRef
Norman G. Dual processing and diagnostic errors. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2009;14:37–49. CrossRef
Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.
Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 1993;100(3):363–406. CrossRef
Graber ML, Franklin N, Ruthanna G. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1493–9. CrossRef
Dijksterhuis A, Bos MW, Nordgren LF, Baaren RB van. On making the right choice: the deliberation-without-attention effect. Science. 2006;311(5763):1005–7. CrossRef
Dijksterhuis A, Nordgren LF. A theory of unconscious thought. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006;1(2):95–109. CrossRef
Durning SJ, Artino AR, Pangaro LN, Vleuten C van der. Redefining context in the clinical encounter: implications for research and training in medical education. Acad Med. 2010;85(5):894–901. CrossRef
Durning SJ, Artino AR, Pangaro L, Vleuten C van der, Schuwirth L. Context and clinical reasoning: understanding the perspective of the expert’s voice. Med Educ. 2011;45(9):927–38. CrossRef
Durning SJ, Artino AR, Boulet JR, Dorrance K. The impact of selected contextual factors on experts’ clinical reasoning performance (does context impact clinical reasoning performance in experts?). Adv Health Sci Educ. 2012;17:65–79. CrossRef
Boreham NC. The dangerous practice of thinking. Med Educ. 1994;28:172–9. CrossRef
Philibert I, Nasca T, Brigham T, Shapiro J. Duty-hour limits and patient care and resident outcomes: can high-quality studies offer insight into complex relationships? Annu Rev Med. 2013;64(21):1–21.
Schuwirth L, Verheggen M, Vleuten C Van der, Boshuizen H, Dinant G. Do short cases elicit different thinking processes than factual knowledge questions do? Med Educ. 2001;35(4):348–56. CrossRef
Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Protocol analysis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1993.
Russo JE, Johnson EJ, Stephens DL. The validity of verbal protocols. Mem Cognit. 1989;17(6):759–69. CrossRef
Ericsson KA. An expert-performance perspective of research on medical expertise: the study of clinical performance. Med Educ. 2007;41:1124–30. CrossRef
Kreiter CD, Bergus GR. Case specificity: empirical phenomenon or measurement artifact? Teach Learn Med. 2007;19(4): 378–81. CrossRef
Merrienboer J Van, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educ Psychol Rev. 2005;17(2):147–77. CrossRef
- Dual processing theory and expertsʼ reasoning: exploring thinking on national multiple-choice questions
Steven J. Durning
Anthony R. Artino
Cees van der Vleuten
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum