一致性
计算机科学
能力(人力资源)
构造(python库)
结构效度
医学物理学
管理科学
医学教育
数据科学
心理学
医学
心理测量学
临床心理学
工程类
社会心理学
内科学
程序设计语言
作者
Michelle Daniel,Joseph Rencic,Steven J. Durning,Eric S. Holmboe,Sally A. Santen,Valerie J. Lang,Temple Ratcliffe,David L. Gordon,Brian S. Heist,Stuart Lubarsky,Carlos A. Estrada,Tiffany N.S. Ballard,Anthony R. Artino,Ana da Silva,Timothy J. Cleary,Jennifer Stojan,Larry D. Gruppen
出处
期刊:Academic Medicine
[Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer)]
日期:2019-06-01
卷期号:94 (6): 902-912
被引量:141
标识
DOI:10.1097/acm.0000000000002618
摘要
Purpose An evidence-based approach to assessment is critical for ensuring the development of clinical reasoning (CR) competence. The wide array of CR assessment methods creates challenges for selecting assessments fit for the purpose; thus, a synthesis of the current evidence is needed to guide practice. A scoping review was performed to explore the existing menu of CR assessments. Method Multiple databases were searched from their inception to 2016 following PRISMA guidelines. Articles of all study design types were included if they studied a CR assessment method. The articles were sorted by assessment methods and reviewed by pairs of authors. Extracted data were used to construct descriptive appendixes, summarizing each method, including common stimuli, response formats, scoring, typical uses, validity considerations, feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages. Results A total of 377 articles were included in the final synthesis. The articles broadly fell into three categories: non-workplace-based assessments (e.g., multiple-choice questions, extended matching questions, key feature examinations, script concordance tests); assessments in simulated clinical environments (objective structured clinical examinations and technology-enhanced simulation); and workplace-based assessments (e.g., direct observations, global assessments, oral case presentations, written notes). Validity considerations, feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages differed by method. Conclusions There are numerous assessment methods that align with different components of the complex construct of CR. Ensuring competency requires the development of programs of assessment that address all components of CR. Such programs are ideally constructed of complementary assessment methods to account for each method’s validity and feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages.