Search

Introduction: Clinical reasoning in diagnostic imaging professions is a complex skill that requires processing of visual information and image manipulation skills. We developed a digital simulation-based test method to increase authenticity of image interpretation skill assessment., Methods: A digital application, allowing volumetric image viewing and manipulation, was used for three test administrations of the national Dutch Radiology Progress Test for residents. This study describes the development and implementation process in three phases. To assess authenticity of the digital tests, perceived image quality and correspondence to clinical practice were evaluated and compared with previous paper-based tests (PTs). Quantitative and qualitative evaluation results were used to improve subsequent tests., Results: Authenticity of the first digital test was not rated higher than the PTs. Test characteristics and environmental conditions, such as image manipulation options and ambient lighting, were optimized based on participants' comments. After adjustments in the third digital test, participants favored the image quality and clinical correspondence of the digital image questions over paper-based image questions., Conclusions: Digital simulations can increase authenticity of diagnostic radiology assessments compared with paper-based testing. However, authenticity does not necessarily increase with higher fidelity. It can be challenging to simulate the image interpretation task of clinical practice in a large-scale assessment setting, because of technological limitations. Optimizing image manipulation options, the level of ambient light, time limits, and question types can help improve authenticity of simulation-based radiology assessments.

Background: Misinterpretation of medical images is an important source of diagnostic error. Errors can occur in different phases of the diagnostic process. Insight in the error types made by learners is crucial for training and giving effective feedback. Most diagnostic skill tests however penalize diagnostic mistakes without an eye for the diagnostic process and the type of error. A radiology test with stepwise reasoning questions was used to distinguish error types in the visual diagnostic process. We evaluated the additional value of a stepwise question-format, in comparison with only diagnostic questions in radiology tests., Methods: Medical students in a radiology elective (n=109) took a radiology test including 11-13 cases in stepwise question-format: marking an abnormality, describing the abnormality and giving a diagnosis. Errors were coded by two independent researchers as perception, analysis, diagnosis, or undefined. Erroneous cases were further evaluated for the presence of latent errors or partial knowledge. Inter-rater reliabilities and percentages of cases with latent errors and partial knowledge were calculated., Results: The stepwise question-format procedure applied to 1351 cases completed by 109 medical students revealed 828 errors. Mean inter-rater reliability of error type coding was Cohen's κ=0.79. Six hundred and fifty errors (79%) could be coded as perception, analysis or diagnosis errors. The stepwise question-format revealed latent errors in 9% and partial knowledge in 18% of cases., Conclusions: A stepwise question-format can reliably distinguish error types in the visual diagnostic process, and reveals latent errors and partial knowledge.

Objective: The purposes of this article are to highlight aspects of tests that increase or decrease their effectiveness and to provide guidelines for constructing high-quality tests in radiology., Conclusion: Many radiologists help construct tests for a variety of purposes. Only well-constructed tests can provide reliable and valuable information about the test taker.

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., (Copyright © 2015 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2015 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)