• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

基于计算机的临床推理评估的首选问题类型:文献研究。

Preferred question types for computer-based assessment of clinical reasoning: a literature study.

机构信息

Center for Research and Development of Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Perspect Med Educ. 2012 Nov;1(4):162-171. doi: 10.1007/s40037-012-0024-1. Epub 2012 Oct 2.

DOI:10.1007/s40037-012-0024-1
PMID:23205341
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3508269/
Abstract

Clinical reasoning is a core competence of doctors. Therefore, the assessment of clinical reasoning of undergraduate students is an important part of medical education. Three medical universities in the Netherlands wish to develop a shared question database in order to assess clinical reasoning of undergraduate students in Computer-Based Assessments (CBA). To determine suitable question types for this purpose a literature study was carried out. Search of ERIC and PubMed and subsequent cross referencing yielded 30 articles which met the inclusion criteria of a focus on question types suitable to assess clinical reasoning of medical students and providing recommendations for their use. Script Concordance Tests, Extended Matching Questions, Comprehensive Integrative Puzzles, Modified Essay Questions/Short Answer Questions, Long Menu Questions, Multiple Choice Questions, Multiple True/False Questions and Virtual Patients meet the above-mentioned criteria, but for different reasons not all types can be used easily in CBA. A combination of Comprehensive Integrative Puzzles and Extended Matching Questions seems to assess most aspects of clinical reasoning and these question types can be adapted for use in CBA. Regardless of the question type chosen, patient vignettes should be used as a standard stimulus format to assess clinical reasoning. Further research is necessary to ensure that the combination of these question types produces valid assessments and reliable test results.

摘要

临床推理是医生的核心能力。因此,评估本科生的临床推理能力是医学教育的重要组成部分。荷兰的三所医科大学希望开发一个共享的问题数据库,以便在基于计算机的评估(CBA)中评估本科生的临床推理能力。为了确定适合这一目的的问题类型,进行了文献研究。对 ERIC 和 PubMed 的搜索以及随后的交叉引用产生了 30 篇符合纳入标准的文章,这些文章的重点是适合评估医学生临床推理能力的问题类型,并为其使用提供了建议。脚本一致性测试、扩展匹配问题、综合综合拼图、修改后的短文问题/简答题、长菜单问题、多项选择题、多项真/假问题和虚拟患者符合上述标准,但由于各种原因,并非所有类型都可以在 CBA 中轻松使用。综合综合拼图和扩展匹配问题的组合似乎可以评估临床推理的大多数方面,这些问题类型可以适应 CBA 的使用。无论选择哪种问题类型,都应使用患者小插曲作为评估临床推理的标准刺激格式。需要进一步研究以确保这些问题类型的组合产生有效的评估和可靠的测试结果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/52b1/3562029/668d9da89bc7/40037_2012_24_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/52b1/3562029/668d9da89bc7/40037_2012_24_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/52b1/3562029/668d9da89bc7/40037_2012_24_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Preferred question types for computer-based assessment of clinical reasoning: a literature study.基于计算机的临床推理评估的首选问题类型:文献研究。
Perspect Med Educ. 2012 Nov;1(4):162-171. doi: 10.1007/s40037-012-0024-1. Epub 2012 Oct 2.
2
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
3
How do medical students actually think while solving problems in three different types of clinical assessments in Korea: Clinical performance examination (CPX), multimedia case-based assessment (CBA), and modified essay question (MEQ).在韩国的三种不同类型临床评估(临床技能考试(CPX)、多媒体案例评估(CBA)和改良短文问题(MEQ))中解决问题时,医学生实际上是如何思考的?
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:10. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.10. Epub 2019 May 9.
4
Comparison of long-menu and single-best-answer multiple choice questions in computer-based summative assessments: a randomised controlled trial.基于计算机的总结性评估中长菜单式和单项最佳答案式多项选择题的比较:一项随机对照试验。
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jun 18;19(1):219. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1651-6.
5
An innovative method to assess clinical reasoning skills: Clinical reasoning tests in the second national medical science Olympiad in Iran.一种评估临床推理能力的创新方法:伊朗第二届全国医学科学奥林匹克竞赛中的临床推理测试
BMC Res Notes. 2011 Oct 17;4:418. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-418.
6
Do extended matching multiple-choice questions measure clinical reasoning?扩展匹配多项选择题能衡量临床推理能力吗?
Med Educ. 2005 Apr;39(4):410-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02089.x.
7
Are script concordance tests suitable for the assessment of undergraduate students? A multicenter comparative study.脚本一致性测试适合评估本科生吗?一项多中心比较研究。
Rev Med Interne. 2021 Apr;42(4):243-250. doi: 10.1016/j.revmed.2020.11.001. Epub 2020 Dec 4.
8
Student and educator experiences of maternal-child simulation-based learning: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol.基于母婴模拟学习的学生和教育工作者体验:定性证据协议的系统评价
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):14-26. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1694.
9
Justify Your Answer: The Role of Written Think Aloud in Script Concordance Testing.论证你的答案:出声思考记录在脚本一致性测试中的作用。
Teach Learn Med. 2017 Jan-Mar;29(1):59-67. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2016.1217778. Epub 2016 Sep 23.
10
Development and validation of a script concordance test to assess biosciences clinical reasoning skills: A cross-sectional study of 1st year undergraduate nursing students.脚本一致性测试评估生物科学临床推理技能的开发和验证:对一年级本科护理学生的横断面研究。
Nurse Educ Today. 2022 Dec;119:105615. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105615. Epub 2022 Oct 21.

引用本文的文献

1
The pattern of reporting and presenting validity evidence of extended matching questions (EMQs) in health professions education: a systematic review.报告和呈现健康职业教育中扩展匹配题(EMQs)有效性证据的模式:系统评价。
Med Educ Online. 2024 Dec 31;29(1):2412392. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2024.2412392. Epub 2024 Oct 24.
2
Assessment of Global Health Education: The Role of Multiple-Choice Questions.全球健康教育评估:多项选择题的作用。
Front Public Health. 2021 Jul 22;9:640204. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.640204. eCollection 2021.
3
Five decades of research and theorization on clinical reasoning: a critical review.

本文引用的文献

1
Poorly performing physicians: does the Script Concordance Test detect bad clinical reasoning?表现不佳的医生:脚本一致性测试能检测出糟糕的临床推理吗?
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2010 Summer;30(3):161-6. doi: 10.1002/chp.20076.
2
Teaching clinical reasoning: case-based and coached.临床推理教学:基于案例和辅导式。
Acad Med. 2010 Jul;85(7):1118-24. doi: 10.1097/acm.0b013e3181d5dd0d.
3
The use of virtual patients to assess the clinical skills and reasoning of medical students: initial insights on student acceptance.使用虚拟患者评估医学生的临床技能和推理能力:对学生接受度的初步见解。
临床推理的五十年研究与理论化:批判性综述
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019 Aug 27;10:703-716. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S213492. eCollection 2019.
4
Comparison of long-menu and single-best-answer multiple choice questions in computer-based summative assessments: a randomised controlled trial.基于计算机的总结性评估中长菜单式和单项最佳答案式多项选择题的比较:一项随机对照试验。
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jun 18;19(1):219. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1651-6.
5
A Comparison Between Written Assessment Methods: Multiple-choice and Short Answer Questions in End-of-clerkship Examinations for Final Year Medical Students.笔试评估方法之比较:医学专业最后一年学生临床实习期末考核中的多项选择题与简答题
Cureus. 2018 Dec 24;10(12):e3773. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3773.
6
Advancing clinical reasoning in virtual patients - development and application of a conceptual framework.推进虚拟患者的临床推理——概念框架的开发与应用
GMS J Med Educ. 2018 Feb 15;35(1):Doc12. doi: 10.3205/zma001159. eCollection 2018.
7
Assessment formats in dental medicine: An overview.牙科医学中的评估形式:概述。
GMS J Med Educ. 2016 Aug 15;33(4):Doc65. doi: 10.3205/zma001064. eCollection 2016.
8
A qualitative analysis of virtual patient descriptions in healthcare education based on a systematic literature review.基于系统文献综述的医疗保健教育中虚拟患者描述的定性分析。
BMC Med Educ. 2016 May 13;16:146. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0655-8.
9
Long-menu questions in computer-based assessments: a retrospective observational study.基于计算机的评估中的长菜单问题:一项回顾性观察研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Feb 9;16:55. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0578-4.
10
Does competition work as a motivating factor in e-learning? A randomized controlled trial.竞争在电子学习中是否作为一个激励因素起作用?一项随机对照试验。
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 17;9(1):e85434. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085434. eCollection 2014.
Med Teach. 2009 Aug;31(8):739-42. doi: 10.1080/01421590903126489.
4
Evidence of gender bias in True-False-Abstain medical examinations.医学考试中存在的真-假-弃权型试题的性别偏见证据。
BMC Med Educ. 2009 Jun 7;9:32. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-9-32.
5
Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps.虚拟患者:一项批判性文献综述及后续步骤建议
Med Educ. 2009 Apr;43(4):303-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03286.x.
6
Growth of analytical thinking skills over time as measured with the MATCH test.随着时间的推移,通过MATCH测试衡量的分析性思维能力的发展。
Med Educ. 2008 Oct;42(10):1037-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03152.x.
7
Assessing clinical reasoning in pediatric emergency medicine: validity evidence for a Script Concordance Test.评估儿科急诊医学中的临床推理:一份脚本一致性测试的效度证据
Ann Emerg Med. 2009 May;53(5):647-52. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.07.024. Epub 2008 Aug 22.
8
Virtual patients for assessing medical students--important aspects when considering the introduction of a new assessment format.用于评估医学生的虚拟患者——在考虑引入新评估形式时的重要方面。
Med Teach. 2008 Feb;30(1):17-24. doi: 10.1080/01421590701758616.
9
Extended Matching Questions and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists written examination: an overview.扩展匹配题与澳大利亚和新西兰皇家精神科医学院笔试:概述
Australas Psychiatry. 2006 Mar;14(1):63-6. doi: 10.1080/j.1440-1665.2006.02247.x.
10
Progress testing with short answer questions.使用简答题进行进展测试。
Med Teach. 2005 Nov;27(7):578-82. doi: 10.1080/01421590500062749.