Evaluating script concordance tests (SCTs) through the lens of Bayesian reasoning: Enhancing assessment in medical education.

Luc Dauchet, Raphaël Bentegeac, Haress Ghauss, Marc Hazzan, Patrick Truffert, Philippe Amouyel, Victoria Gauthier, Aghiles Hamroun
{"title":"Evaluating script concordance tests (SCTs) through the lens of Bayesian reasoning: Enhancing assessment in medical education.","authors":"Luc Dauchet, Raphaël Bentegeac, Haress Ghauss, Marc Hazzan, Patrick Truffert, Philippe Amouyel, Victoria Gauthier, Aghiles Hamroun","doi":"10.1016/j.jeph.2024.202804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Script Concordance Tests (SCTs) represent an innovative assessment method which have been introduced in the 2024 French National Ranking Examinations (EDN). These tests compare a student's clinical reasoning with that of a panel of experts under conditions of uncertainty. Typically, the question involves the impact of new information on an initially proposed hypothesis, with answers given on a Likert scale.</p><p><strong>Main findings: </strong>This article aims to didactically illustrate how SCTs are consistent with probabilistic reasoning as modeled by Bayes' theorem. In addition, by comparing SCT writing guidelines with Bayesian reasoning concepts, several ambiguities were identified: (1) What stage of clinical reasoning do SCTs evaluate? (2) What are the appropriate labels for Likert scale responses? (3) Does the expert panel provide a relevant reference for SCTs?</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Currently, many of these questions remain unanswered in the literature, with recent data suggesting that experienced physicians' responses to SCTs are often biased. Beyond their use as an assessment tool in the EDN, SCTs offer a valuable opportunity to develop and deepen the teaching of probabilistic reasoning in medical education and serve as a potential area of research to improve clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":517428,"journal":{"name":"Journal of epidemiology and population health","volume":"73 1","pages":"202804"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of epidemiology and population health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeph.2024.202804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Script Concordance Tests (SCTs) represent an innovative assessment method which have been introduced in the 2024 French National Ranking Examinations (EDN). These tests compare a student's clinical reasoning with that of a panel of experts under conditions of uncertainty. Typically, the question involves the impact of new information on an initially proposed hypothesis, with answers given on a Likert scale.

Main findings: This article aims to didactically illustrate how SCTs are consistent with probabilistic reasoning as modeled by Bayes' theorem. In addition, by comparing SCT writing guidelines with Bayesian reasoning concepts, several ambiguities were identified: (1) What stage of clinical reasoning do SCTs evaluate? (2) What are the appropriate labels for Likert scale responses? (3) Does the expert panel provide a relevant reference for SCTs?

Conclusions: Currently, many of these questions remain unanswered in the literature, with recent data suggesting that experienced physicians' responses to SCTs are often biased. Beyond their use as an assessment tool in the EDN, SCTs offer a valuable opportunity to develop and deepen the teaching of probabilistic reasoning in medical education and serve as a potential area of research to improve clinical practice.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信