Search

Rationale and Objectives: The psychometric characteristics of image-based test items in radiological written examinations are not well known. In this study, we explored difficulty and discriminating power of these test items in postgraduate radiological digital examinations.Materials and Methods: We reviewed test items of seven Dutch Radiology Progress Tests (DRPTs) that were taken from October 2013 to April 2017. The DRPT is a semiannual formative examination, required for all Dutch radiology residents. We assessed several stimulus and response characteristics of test items. The response format of test items included true or false, single right multiple choice with 2, 3, 4, or ≥5 answer options, pick-N multiple-choice, drag-and-drop, and long-list-menu formats. We calculated item P values and item-rest-correlation (Rir) values to assess difficulty and discriminating power. We performed linear regression analysis in image-based test items to investigate whether P and Rir values were significantly related to stimulus and response characteristics. Also, we compared psychometric indices between image-based test items and text-alone items.Results: P and Rir values of image-based items (n = 369) were significantly related to the type of response format (P < .001), and not to which of the seven DRPTs the item was obtained from, radiological subspecialty domain, nonvolumetric or volumetric character of images, or context-rich or context-free character of the stimulus. When accounted for type of response format, difficulty and discriminating power of image-based items did not differ significantly from text-alone items (n = 881). Test items with a relatively large number of answer options were generally more difficult, and discriminated better among high- and low-performing candidates.Conclusion: In postgraduate radiological written examinations, difficulty and discriminating power of image-based test items are related to the type of response format and are comparable to those of text-alone items. We recommend a response format with a relatively large number of answer options to optimize psychometric indices of radiological image-based test items. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars have identified two distinct ways of thinking. This "Dual Process Theory" distinguishes a fast, nonanalytical way of thinking, called "System 1," and a slow, analytical way of thinking, referred to as "System 2." In radiology, we use both methods when interpreting and reporting images, and both should ideally be emphasized when educating our trainees. This review provides practical tips for improving radiology education, by enhancing System 1 and System 2 thinking among our trainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and Objectives: Radiology expertise is dependent on the use of efficient search strategies. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of teaching search strategies on trainee's accuracy in detecting lung nodules at computed tomography.Materials and Methods: Two search strategies, "scanning" and "drilling," were tested with a randomized crossover design. Nineteen junior radiology residents were randomized into two groups. Both groups first completed a baseline lung nodule detection test allowing a free search strategy, followed by a test after scanning instruction and drilling instruction or vice versa. True positive (TP) and false positive (FP) scores and scroll behavior were registered. A mixed-design analysis of variance was applied to compare the three search conditions.Results: Search strategy instruction had a significant effect on scroll behavior, F(1.3) = 54.2, P < 0.001; TP score, F(2) = 16.1, P < 0.001; and FP score, F(1.3) = 15.3, P < 0.001. Scanning instruction resulted in significantly lower TP scores than drilling instruction (M = 10.7, SD = 5.0 versus M = 16.3, SD = 5.3), t(18) = 4.78, P < 0.001; or free search (M = 15.3, SD = 4.6), t(18) = 4.44, P < 0.001. TP scores for drilling did not significantly differ from free search. FP scores for drilling (M = 7.3, SD = 5.6) were significantly lower than for free search (M = 12.5, SD = 7.8), t(18) = 4.86, P < 0.001.Conclusions: Teaching a drilling strategy is preferable to teaching a scanning strategy for finding lung nodules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and Objectives In current practice, radiologists interpret digital images, including a substantial amount of volumetric images. We hypothesized that interpretation of a stack of a volumetric data set demands different skills than interpretation of two-dimensional (2D) cross-sectional images. This study aimed to investigate and compare knowledge and skills used for interpretation of volumetric versus 2D images. Materials and Methods Twenty radiology clerks were asked to think out loud while reading four or five volumetric computed tomography (CT) images in stack mode and four or five 2D CT images. Cases were presented in a digital testing program allowing stack viewing of volumetric data sets and changing views and window settings. Thoughts verbalized by the participants were registered and coded by a framework of knowledge and skills concerning three components: perception, analysis, and synthesis. The components were subdivided into 16 discrete knowledge and skill elements. A within-subject analysis was performed to compare cognitive processes during volumetric image readings versus 2D cross-sectional image readings. Results Most utterances contained knowledge and skills concerning perception (46%). A smaller part involved synthesis (31%) and analysis (23%). More utterances regarded perception in volumetric image interpretation than in 2D image interpretation (Median 48% vs 35%; z = −3.9; P < .001). Synthesis was less prominent in volumetric than in 2D image interpretation (Median 28% vs 42%; z = −3.9; P < .001). No differences were found in analysis utterances. Conclusions Cognitive processes in volumetric and 2D cross-sectional image interpretation differ substantially. Volumetric image interpretation draws predominantly on perceptual processes, whereas 2D image interpretation is mainly characterized by synthesis. The results encourage the use of volumetric images for teaching and testing perceptual skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and Objectives Radiology practice has become increasingly based on volumetric images (VIs), but tests in medical education still mainly involve two-dimensional (2D) images. We created a novel, digital, VI test and hypothesized that scores on this test would better reflect radiological anatomy skills than scores on a traditional 2D image test. To evaluate external validity we correlated VI and 2D image test scores with anatomy cadaver–based test scores. Materials and Methods In 2012, 246 medical students completed one of two comparable versions (A and B) of a digital radiology test, each containing 20 2D image and 20 VI questions. Thirty-three of these participants also took a human cadaver anatomy test. Mean scores and reliabilities of the 2D image and VI subtests were compared and correlated with human cadaver anatomy test scores. Participants received a questionnaire about perceived representativeness and difficulty of the radiology test. Results Human cadaver test scores were not correlated with 2D image scores, but significantly correlated with VI scores ( r = 0.44, P < .05). Cronbach's α reliability was 0.49 (A) and 0.65 (B) for the 2D image subtests and 0.65 (A) and 0.71 (B) for VI subtests. Mean VI scores (74.4%, standard deviation 2.9) were significantly lower than 2D image scores (83.8%, standard deviation 2.4) in version A ( P < .001). VI questions were considered more representative of clinical practice and education than 2D image questions and less difficult (both P < .001). Conclusions VI tests show higher reliability, a significant correlation with human cadaver test scores, and are considered more representative for clinical practice than tests with 2D images. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical image interpretation is moving from using 2D- to volumetric images, thereby changing the cognitive and perceptual processes involved. This is expected to affect medical students' experienced cognitive load, while learning image interpretation skills. With two studies this explorative research investigated whether measures inherent to image interpretation, i.e. human-computer interaction and eye tracking, relate to cognitive load. Subsequently, it investigated effects of volumetric image interpretation on second-year medical students' cognitive load. Study 1 measured human-computer interactions of participants during two volumetric image interpretation tasks. Using structural equation modelling, the latent variable ‘volumetric image information’ was identified from the data, which significantly predicted self-reported mental effort as a measure of cognitive load. Study 2 measured participants' eye movements during multiple 2D and volumetric image interpretation tasks. Multilevel analysis showed that time to locate a relevant structure in an image was significantly related to pupil dilation, as a proxy for cognitive load. It is discussed how combining human-computer interaction and eye tracking allows for comprehensive measurement of cognitive load. Combining such measures in a single model would allow for disentangling unique sources of cognitive load, leading to recommendations for implementation of volumetric image interpretation in the medical education curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and objectives Current radiology practice increasingly involves interpretation of volumetric data sets. In contrast, most radiology tests still contain only 2D images. We introduced a new testing tool that allows for stack viewing of volumetric images in our undergraduate radiology program. We hypothesized that tests with volumetric CT-images enhance test quality, in comparison with traditional completely 2D image-based tests, because they might better reflect required skills for clinical practice. Materials and methods Two groups of medical students ( n = 139; n = 143), trained with 2D and volumetric CT-images, took a digital radiology test in two versions (A and B), each containing both 2D and volumetric CT-image questions. In a questionnaire, they were asked to comment on the representativeness for clinical practice, difficulty and user-friendliness of the test questions and testing program. Students’ test scores and reliabilities, measured with Cronbach's alpha, of 2D and volumetric CT-image tests were compared. Results Estimated reliabilities (Cronbach's alphas) were higher for volumetric CT-image scores (version A: .51 and version B: .54), than for 2D CT-image scores (version A: .24 and version B: .37). Participants found volumetric CT-image tests more representative of clinical practice, and considered them to be less difficult than volumetric CT-image questions. However, in one version (A), volumetric CT-image scores (M 80.9, SD 14.8) were significantly lower than 2D CT-image scores (M 88.4, SD 10.4) ( p < .001). The volumetric CT-image testing program was considered user-friendly. Conclusion This study shows that volumetric image questions can be successfully integrated in students’ radiology testing. Results suggests that the inclusion of volumetric CT-images might improve the quality of radiology tests by positively impacting perceived representativeness for clinical practice and increasing reliability of the test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]