Search

Background: Family physicians perceive that gut feelings, i.e. a 'sense of reassurance' or a 'sense of alarm', play a substantial role in diagnostic reasoning. A measuring instrument is desirable for further research. Our objective is to validate a questionnaire measuring the presence of gut feelings in diagnostic reasoning. Methods: We constructed 16 case vignettes from real practice situations and used the accompanying 'sense of reassurance' or the 'sense of alarm' as reference labels. Based on the results of an initial study (26 family physicians), we divided the case vignettes into a group involving a clear role for the sense of reassurance or the sense of alarm and a group involving an ambiguous role. 49 experienced family physicians evaluated each 10 vignettes using the questionnaire. Construct validity was assessed by testing hypotheses and an internal consistency procedure was performed. Results: As hypothesized we found that the correlations between the reference labels and corresponding items were high for the clear-case vignettes (0.59 - 0.72) and low for the ambiguous-case vignettes (0.08 - 0.23). The agreement between the classification in clear sense of reassurance, clear sense of alarm and ambiguous case vignettes as derived from the initial study and the study population's judgments was substantial (Kappa = 0.62). Factor analysis showed one factor with opposites for sense of reassurance and sense of alarm items. The questionnaire's internal consistency was high (0.91). We provided a linguistic validated English-language text of the questionnaire. Conclusions: The questionnaire appears to be valid. It enables quantitative research into the role of gut feelings and their diagnostic value in family physicians' diagnostic reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on cognitive psychological research, a number of theoretical frameworks have been put forward to describe the structure of experts’ medical knowledge and to explain experts’ case-processing. To provide evidence for the theory of knowledge encapsulation, which states that medical knowledge constitutes of interlinked biomedical and clinical knowledge. Fourth-year medical students, clerks and medical experts evaluated six case descriptions, consisting of laboratory data either with or without a clinical context. For each case description, the participants were required to study the case, to formulate a diagnosis, and to write down everything they could remember of the case. When the laboratory data were not embedded within a clinical context, medical experts’ case-processing increased and their diagnostic accuracy became worse. Furthermore, laboratory data recall of medical experts was more elaborate in cases where the laboratory data were presented without a clinical context. Similar results were obtained for students and clerks. The findings are only partially consistent with a prediction made by the theory of knowledge encapsulation. Further research, using a different paradigm than the traditionally used method of free recall, is required to unearth whether medical experts use qualitatively different knowledge structures than novices while solving cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]