Search

OBJECTIVES This study examined the construct validity of three commonly used clerkship performance assessments, including preceptors' evaluations, objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)-type clinical performance measures, and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) medicine subject examination, in order to better understand their conceptual structures and utility in the explanation of clinical competence. METHODS A total of 686 students who took an in-patient medicine clerkship during the period 2003 to 2007 participated in the study. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using structural equation modelling were adopted to examine the latent domains underlying various indicators assessed by these three measures and the pattern of indicator-domain relationships. RESULTS Factor analyses found three latent constructs, labelled Clinical Performance, Interpersonal Skills and Clinical Knowledge, underlying the observed measures. The three domains were modestly correlated with one another (inter-factor correlation coefficients ranged from 0.39 to 0.54). They also tapped a common higher-order construct, Clinical Competence, in varying degrees of magnitude (0.73, 0.74, 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrated that although the three commonly used tools for assessing clerkship performance contributed uniquely to the understanding of clinical performance, they also attested to a shared domain of clinical competence in their assessment. The study confirmed the need for a multiple-methods approach to clinical performance assessment. Findings also revealed that clerkship preceptors need to differentiate their evaluation of students' performances, and that the OSCE did not assess a single domain of clinical competence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context The finding of case or content specificity in medical problem solving moved the focus of research away from generalisable skills towards the importance of content knowledge. However, controversy about the content dependency of clinical performance and the generalisability of skills remains. Objectives This study aimed to explore the relative impact of both perspectives (case specificity and generalisable skills) on different components (history taking, physical examination, communication) of clinical performance within and across cases. Methods Data from a clinical performance examination (CPX) taken by 350 Year 3 students were used in a correlated traits−correlated methods (CTCM) approach using confirmatory factor analysis, whereby ‘traits’ refers to generalisable skills and ‘methods’ to individual cases. The baseline CTCM model was analysed and compared with four nested models using structural equation modelling techniques. The CPX consisted of three skills components and five cases. Results Comparison of the four different models with the least-restricted baseline CTCM model revealed that a model with uncorrelated generalisable skills factors and correlated case-specific knowledge factors represented the data best. The generalisable processes found in history taking, physical examination and communication were responsible for half the explained variance, in comparison with the variance related to case specificity. Conclusions Pure knowledge-based and pure skill-based perspectives on clinical performance both seem too one-dimensional and new evidence supports the idea that a substantial amount of variance contributes to both aspects of performance. It could be concluded that generalisable skills and specialised knowledge go hand in hand: both are essential aspects of clinical performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Clerkship experiences are considered crucial for the development of clinical competence. Yet whether there is a direct relationship between the nature and volume of patient encounters and learning outcomes is far from clear. Some evidence in the literature points towards the importance of clinical supervision on student learning, but the relationship between clinical supervision, patient encounters and student competence remains unclear. Objectives This study aimed firstly to determine the variation in students' clinical experiences within and across sites; secondly, to identify the causes of this variation, and thirdly, to investigate the consequences of this variation on students' competence. Methods Clerkship students at 12 hospital sites recorded their patient encounters in logbooks. Site characteristics that might influence the variation in patient encounters were collected. Student competence was determined by 3 independent indicators: a practical end-of-clerkship examination; a theoretical end-of-clerkship examination, and an evaluation of professional performance. A model was developed to test the available clerkship data using structural equation modelling (SEM) software. Results Analysis of the logbooks revealed a large variation in the number of patients encountered by students. The average length of patient stay, number of patients admitted, and quality of supervision accounted partly for this variation. An increased number of patient encounters did not directly lead to improved competence. Quality of supervision turned out to be crucially important because it directly impacted student learning and also positively influenced the number of patient encounters. Conclusion Monitoring the effectiveness of clerkship by merely asking students to keep a tally of the problems and diseases they encounter, without paying attention to the quality of supervision, does not contribute towards improving student learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study was directed at illuminating a well known phenomenon in the medical expertise literature, the ‘intermediate effect’ in clinical case recall. This robust phenomenon consists of the finding that medical students of intermediate levels of expertise outperform both experts and novices in clinical case recall after diagnosing cases. It deals in particular with the findings of OME researchers who have reported a monotonically increasing recall with level of expertise. Purpose To address possible causes for this anomaly in medical expertise and to experimentally demonstrate how data elaboration can cause expertise effects in clinical case recall. Method Expert nephrologists, intermediate level students and novices were presented with 6 medical cases under 3 different conditions: laboratory data cases without special instructions, laboratory data cases with instructions to elaborate, and cases with laboratory data and a relevant clinical context. Results Only when participants were required to elaborate on each of the information units presented to them did case recall show an expertise effect. If laboratory data are framed within the context of a patient's history and physical examination data, the ‘intermediate effect’ appears. Conclusions The instructions used in the elaboration condition seem to have induced a deeper, more detailed, analysis of the patient case. It is therefore interesting to note that these instructions only affected the recall of the experts and had no effect on the novices' or intermediates' recall. We might conclude from this that expertise effects in clinical case recall are only produced when the normal processing of patient information is disrupted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]