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.

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