A Comparison of Knowledge, Synthesis, and Clinical Judgment

Author:

Norcini John J.,Swanson David B.,Grosso Louis J.,Shea Judy A.,Webster George D.1

Affiliation:

1. American Board of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia

Abstract

This study compares the reliability, validity, and efficiency of three multiple-choice question (MCQs) ability scales with patient management problems (PMPs). Data are from the 1980, 1981, and 1982 American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Examinations. The MCQ ability scales were constructed by classifying the one best answer and multiple-true/false questions in each examination as measuring predominantly clinical judgment, synthesis, or knowledge. Clinical judgment items require prioritizing or weighing management decisions; synthesis items require the integration of findings into a diagnostic decision; and knowledge items stress recall of factual information. Analyses indicate that the MCQ ability scales are more reliable and valid per unit of testing time than are PMPs and that clinical judgment and synthesis scales are slightly more correlated with PMPs than is the knowledge scale. Additionally, all MCQ ability scales seem to be measuring the same aspects of competence as PMPs.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Reference12 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3