Tolerance for uncertainty and medical students' specialty choices: A myth revisited.

IF 4.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Odette Wegwarth, Moritz Pfoch, Claudia Spies, Martin Möckel, Stefan J Schaller, Markus Wehler, Helge Giese
{"title":"Tolerance for uncertainty and medical students' specialty choices: A myth revisited.","authors":"Odette Wegwarth, Moritz Pfoch, Claudia Spies, Martin Möckel, Stefan J Schaller, Markus Wehler, Helge Giese","doi":"10.1111/medu.15610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 1962, the idea emerged that medical students' tolerance of uncertainty could determine their specialty choice. While some studies supported this claim, others refuted it, often using independently developed instruments. We explored whether the reported link between specialty choice and uncertainty tolerance is more myth than evidence by employing established instruments to investigate whether specialty choice could be explained by variance in uncertainty tolerance.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional online survey at two periods of time. From February to June 2023, we queried 563 final-year medical students from 34 German medical universities (1) on their uncertainty tolerance using three validated tools (the modified tolerance for ambiguity scale, the physicians' reaction to uncertainty scale and the uncertainty intolerance scenario method) and (2) on their intended specialty choice. In a follow-up 1 year later (May to June 2024), 263 of those medical students responded to our query on their final specialty choice and again on their uncertainty tolerance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants' (N = 563) median age was 26.0 years (mean: 27.2; SD = 3.8), and 70% (n = 396) were female. Originally reported differences and rank orders in uncertainty tolerance among medical students with different intended specialty choices could not be replicated for any of the three scales. Instead, our results suggest different rank orders of uncertainty tolerance by different tools, as well as nonsignificant differences between intended medical specialties. Intercorrelation coefficient analyses demonstrated that, depending on the scale, only 0.3% to 1.5% of the variance in uncertainty tolerance could be attributed to specialty choice. Follow-up data using actual instead of intended medical choices left findings unchanged.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our findings suggest that the presumed link between uncertainty tolerance and specialty choice is more myth than evidence. Instead of teaching this link or using it as an admissions criterion, medical schools should equip students with the skills needed to navigate uncertainty across their careers.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15610","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In 1962, the idea emerged that medical students' tolerance of uncertainty could determine their specialty choice. While some studies supported this claim, others refuted it, often using independently developed instruments. We explored whether the reported link between specialty choice and uncertainty tolerance is more myth than evidence by employing established instruments to investigate whether specialty choice could be explained by variance in uncertainty tolerance.

Method: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey at two periods of time. From February to June 2023, we queried 563 final-year medical students from 34 German medical universities (1) on their uncertainty tolerance using three validated tools (the modified tolerance for ambiguity scale, the physicians' reaction to uncertainty scale and the uncertainty intolerance scenario method) and (2) on their intended specialty choice. In a follow-up 1 year later (May to June 2024), 263 of those medical students responded to our query on their final specialty choice and again on their uncertainty tolerance.

Results: Participants' (N = 563) median age was 26.0 years (mean: 27.2; SD = 3.8), and 70% (n = 396) were female. Originally reported differences and rank orders in uncertainty tolerance among medical students with different intended specialty choices could not be replicated for any of the three scales. Instead, our results suggest different rank orders of uncertainty tolerance by different tools, as well as nonsignificant differences between intended medical specialties. Intercorrelation coefficient analyses demonstrated that, depending on the scale, only 0.3% to 1.5% of the variance in uncertainty tolerance could be attributed to specialty choice. Follow-up data using actual instead of intended medical choices left findings unchanged.

Discussion: Our findings suggest that the presumed link between uncertainty tolerance and specialty choice is more myth than evidence. Instead of teaching this link or using it as an admissions criterion, medical schools should equip students with the skills needed to navigate uncertainty across their careers.

对不确定性的容忍与医学生的专业选择:一个重新审视的神话。
背景:1962年,有观点认为医学生对不确定性的容忍度可以决定他们的专业选择。虽然一些研究支持这一说法,但其他研究通常使用独立开发的仪器驳斥了这一说法。我们通过采用既定的工具来调查专业选择是否可以用不确定性容忍度的方差来解释,从而探讨了专业选择与不确定性容忍度之间的联系是否更多地是神话而不是证据。方法:分两个时间段进行横断面在线调查。从2023年2月到6月,我们对来自34所德国医科大学的563名大四医学生进行了问卷调查(1),使用了三种经过验证的工具(修正模糊度容忍度量表、医生对不确定性量表的反应和不确定性不容忍情景法),(2)他们的专业选择意向。在一年后(2024年5月至6月)的随访中,263名医学生回答了我们关于他们最终专业选择的问题,并再次回答了他们对不确定性的容忍度。结果:参与者(N = 563)的中位年龄为26.0岁(平均27.2岁;SD = 3.8), 70% (n = 396)为女性。最初报告的不确定性容忍度在不同专业选择的医学生之间的差异和排名顺序不能在三个量表中复制。相反,我们的研究结果表明,不同工具对不确定性容忍度的排序不同,并且在预期的医学专业之间存在不显著差异。相关系数分析表明,根据不同的量表,只有0.3%至1.5%的不确定性容忍度方差可归因于专业选择。使用实际而非预期的医疗选择的随访数据没有改变结果。讨论:我们的研究结果表明,不确定性容忍和专业选择之间的假定联系更多的是神话而不是证据。医学院不应该教授这种联系或将其作为入学标准,而应该让学生掌握在职业生涯中应对不确定性所需的技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
×
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