TY - JOUR
T1 - The feasibility, reliability, and validity of a post-encounter form for evaluating clinical reasoning
AU - Durning, Steven J.
AU - Artino, Anthony
AU - Boulet, John
AU - La Rochelle, Jeffrey
AU - Van Der Vleuten, Cees
AU - Arze, Bonnie
AU - Schuwirth, Lambert
N1 - Funding Information:
STEVEN J. DURNING, MD, is a professor of medicine and pathology at the Uniformed Services University (USU) in Bethesda, Maryland. ANTHONY ARTINO is an assistant professor of preventive medicine and biometrics at USU. JOHN BOULET is an associate vice president for Research and Data Resources, Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research. JEFFREY LA ROCHELLE is an assistant professor of medicine and a course director at USU. CEES VAN DER VLEUTEN is a professor of Education, chair of the Department of Educational Development and Research and Scientific Director of the School of Health Professions Education at Maastricht University. BONNIE ARZE served as a research assistant for this study at USU. LAMBERT SCHUWIRTH is a professor of Education at Maastricht University.
PY - 2012/1
Y1 - 2012/1
N2 - Background: Developing feasible, reliable and valid methods for the evaluation of clinical reasoning is challenging. Aim: To explore feasibility, reliability, and validity evidence for a post-encounter form assessing clinical reasoning. Method: A free-text, post-encounter form was used in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) station to assess clinical reasoning for end-of-second-year medical students. Feasibility was assessed by time to complete form. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by kappa. Validity evidence was obtained by comparing scores from individual items on the post-encounter form and other components in this OSCE station (i.e., standardized patient checklist and oral presentation rating form). Additional validity evidence was gathered by comparing scores on this station with other course performance graded events. Results: Feasibility and estimated reliability were high, and several lines of validity evidence were supported. Conclusions: The scores from an end-of-second-year, medical school, post-encounter form yielded adequate psychometric properties and can be used for the evaluation of clinical reasoning. Moreover, this form of assessment and its scoring could translate to other venues.
AB - Background: Developing feasible, reliable and valid methods for the evaluation of clinical reasoning is challenging. Aim: To explore feasibility, reliability, and validity evidence for a post-encounter form assessing clinical reasoning. Method: A free-text, post-encounter form was used in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) station to assess clinical reasoning for end-of-second-year medical students. Feasibility was assessed by time to complete form. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by kappa. Validity evidence was obtained by comparing scores from individual items on the post-encounter form and other components in this OSCE station (i.e., standardized patient checklist and oral presentation rating form). Additional validity evidence was gathered by comparing scores on this station with other course performance graded events. Results: Feasibility and estimated reliability were high, and several lines of validity evidence were supported. Conclusions: The scores from an end-of-second-year, medical school, post-encounter form yielded adequate psychometric properties and can be used for the evaluation of clinical reasoning. Moreover, this form of assessment and its scoring could translate to other venues.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855937983&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3109/0142159X.2011.590557
DO - 10.3109/0142159X.2011.590557
M3 - Article
C2 - 22250673
AN - SCOPUS:84855937983
SN - 0142-159X
VL - 34
SP - 30
EP - 37
JO - Medical Teacher
JF - Medical Teacher
IS - 1
ER -